How Public Participation Shapes Policy Outcomes in the Supreme Court

Examining an Overlooked Factor in Policy Durability

When federal agencies propose new regulations, the public is invited to weigh in. Individuals, advocacy groups, and organizations can submit comments responding to proposed rules, offer expertise, or share how a policy might affect them. But does this public engagement actually have anything to do with whether those policies stand up in court?

Assistant Professor Devin Judge-Lord at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy is leading a research project to understand how public participation shapes the legal life of federal regulations.

“A lot happens between a policy being drafted and the moment it reaches the Supreme Court,” Judge-Lord said. “We know courts evaluate the technical reasoning behind agency decisions. But we know much less about how the public’s voice in the process matters once a policy is challenged.”

Building a Comprehensive Legal Dataset

The project compiles one of the most extensive datasets to date on U.S. Supreme Court cases involving federal agency policymaking, spanning more than four decades (1980-2024).

The team links each case to detailed information about the original rulemaking process, including:

• The number of public comments submitted
• The range of perspectives represented
• How agency officials explained the role of expertise
• The timeline from legislation to final rule

This work allows the researchers to test a central question: Are policies crafted through more inclusive, participatory processes more likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court?

Challenging Assumptions About Expertise and Democracy

Traditionally, legal scholars and courts have emphasized the role of technical expertise in agency rulemaking. Public participation, while legally required, is often treated as a procedural formality rather than a substantive contribution.

“The Administrative Procedure Act is widely understood as a framework for ensuring sound, expert-driven policymaking,” Judge-Lord explained. “But it also reflects a democratic commitment to public voice. We’re trying to measure how that democratic element actually affects legal outcomes.”

Preliminary findings suggest that when a diverse range of individuals and groups take part in the rulemaking process, the resulting policies may be more resilient in court. In contrast, policies that rely heavily on formalized procedural steps without broad public engagement may be more vulnerable to being struck down.

Student Researchers Driving the Work Forward

Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) students played a key role in assembling the dataset.

Ford School students Zayn Merrick and William Cooper, and political science student Jessica Rehberg, helped trace each Supreme Court case back to the original regulatory process, reviewing court records, agency dockets, and federal archives. Their work ensured the dataset is both accurate and comprehensive.

“This was not surface-level research. The students built foundational data that is enabling the analysis we’re now beginning,” Judge-Lord said.

Next Steps and Broader Implications

The team is now conducting statistical analysis to evaluate patterns across cases. Two academic articles are in development: one on the link between public participation and judicial outcomes, and another examining whether major Supreme Court precedents have actually shifted how courts evaluate agency decision-making.

Beyond academic debate, the findings could inform how agencies design public engagement processes and how policymakers and judges think about the legitimacy of regulatory decisions.

This research underscores a broader principle: democratic participation may have more practical impact than it is often given credit for.

“Public input is not just symbolic,” Judge-Lord said. “It is related to how durable and legitimate a policy is.”