This project examines interest group participation in the Supreme Court. Scholars agree that the power of the judiciary has been increasing over time. It is also clear that as this has occurred, interest groups have attempted to use this branch more often to seek political impact. Groups approach the court in many ways; one of the most visible is filing an amicus curiae brief in a case. The scholarly work that has been done has mixed results with regards to whether or not these briefs are successful in influencing case outcome. The puzzle then, is why is the number of amicus curiae briefs, and thus the amount of money groups must put toward them, continuing to increase significantly if these briefs are not always relevant? Case outcome is obviously not all that matters to these groups.

The substantive case area examined here is religious interests. I build on the most comprehensive judicial database available, the United States Supreme Court Database (Spaeth 2007) by adding variables to specific cases regarding the amicus curiae briefs and the party they are supporting. This project includes quantitative analyses of efficacy and collaboration in two divergent case types, symbolic benefit and tangible benefit cases. The final section includes a qualitative analysis and case studies of several of the most active groups.