Finding Law: Organized Interests and the Confinement of Executive Primacy

Filing written briefs before apex courts is a key channel through which federal executives, subnational governments, and private actors shape legal rules. Existing theory predicts that federal executives should dominate rulemaking because their legal offices are the preeminent repeat player for rules-yet no quantitative study has tested this claim. Using newly available full-text observations submitted to the European Court of Justice between 2022 and 2025, I measure whose proposal is semantically closest to the Court's operative part. Contrary to expectations, the Commission is closer to the Court's rule than member states only in slightly more than half of cases, while private actors are closest in nearly one-third; each additional member state brief reduces the Commission's advantage. These findings show that repeat-player status does not guarantee interpretive primacy, leaving executive influence over rulemaking competitively constrained.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2026-zcqv9-v2
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
preprint

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Finding Law: Organized Interests and the Confinement of Executive Primacy

Mauricio Mandujano Manriquez
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
preprint

Finding Law: Organized Interests and the Confinement of Executive Primacy

Mauricio Mandujano Manriquez
preprint en

Abstract

Filing written briefs before apex courts is a key channel through which federal executives, subnational governments, and private actors shape legal rules. Existing theory predicts that federal executives should dominate rulemaking because their legal offices are the preeminent repeat player for rules-yet no quantitative study has tested this claim. Using newly available full-text observations submitted to the European Court of Justice between 2022 and 2025, I measure whose proposal is semantically closest to the Court's operative part. Contrary to expectations, the Commission is closer to the Court's rule than member states only in slightly more than half of cases, while private actors are closest in nearly one-third; each additional member state brief reduces the Commission's advantage. These findings show that repeat-player status does not guarantee interpretive primacy, leaving executive influence over rulemaking competitively constrained.

University of Oslo (NO)
American Political Science Association, Norges Forskningsråd
Peace, justice, and strong institutions
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon