Which Governments Come Out Ahead?

Party capability theory often assumes that governments, due to their immense amount of resources and status as repeat players, hold an immense advantage over individuals and organizations pursuing litigation in courts. What is less known is whether all levels of government enjoy this advantage, how they fare against one another and how an institutional arrangement such as federalism complicates these relationships. In this paper, we investigate this question using decisions made by the high courts of Australia, Canada, and the United States. We find that institutional arrangements, such as federalism, complicate traditional notions of which governments come out ahead. Our findings yield important implications for party capability theory, specifically, and comparative federalism, generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]