Investigates the role of federal judges in prison reform, and policy making in general.

"An excellent introduction to judicial politics as a method of analysis, the seventh edition of Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking focuses on policy in the judicial process. Rather than limiting the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government, and weaves four major premises throughout the text: 1. Courts in the United States have always played an important role in governing and their role has increased in recent decades; 2. Judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; 3. Courts make policy in a variety of ways; and 4. Courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators"--

Policy Change, Courts, and the Canadian Constitution aims to further our understanding of judicial policy impact and the role of the courts in shaping policy change. Bringing together a group of political scientists and legal scholars, this volume delves into a diverse set of policy areas, including health care issues, the regulation of elections, criminal justice policy, minority language education, citizenship, refugee policy, human rights legislation, and Indigenous policy. While much of the public law and judicial politics literatures focus on the impact of the constitution and the judicial role, scholarship on courts that makes policy change its central lens of analysis is surprisingly rare. Multidisciplinary in its approach to examining policy issues, this book focuses on specific cases or policy issues through a wide-ranging set of approaches, including the use of interview data, policy analysis, historical and interpretive analysis, and jurisprudential analysis.

For courses in courts and the judicial process; and law and society. The scope of its coverage, and its high academic quality, makes it attractive for graduate courses as well. Christopher P. Banks and David M. O'Brien wrote Courts and Judicial Policymaking to fill a need for a comprehensive textbook on law and judicial policymaking. The text provides a fresh perspective on the contemporary politics of law, courts, the legal profession, and judicial policymaking, often with an underlying comparative judicial process perspective. It covers four distinct areas: 1) What is law?; 2) How are courts organized and how do they work procedurally?; 3) What influences court access and, ultimately, judicial decision-making?; and, 4) How do courts make policy, and how is judicial authority constrained? It has relevant and contemporary analyses of literature from the political science and legal fields; and analyses from scholars who argue from the quantitative (attitudinal and strategic models) and the qualitative (new institutionalism) perspectives. It contains up-to-date charts and graphs on the organization of courts and trends in litigation, caseloads, and opinion writing, and it is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate classes. Feedback includes: "The book is extremely well written and organized, one of the smoothest textbooks I have read in terms of readability. The tables provided are a major selling point for the book - nicely summarize complex and often confusing materials." - Roger Handberg, University of Central Florida "The best feature of this manuscript is its thorough coverage of the subject matter as well as the in-depth analysis of specific topics and questions addressed in the boxed material and sidebars. Adding a comparative dimension by looking at the judicial systems and procedures of other countries is also quite novel." - Susan Mezey, Loyola University, Chicago

In recent years, the power of American judges to make social policy has been significantly broadened. The courts have reached into many matters once thought to be beyond the customary scope of judicial decisionmaking: education and employment policy, environmental issues, prison and hospital management, and welfare administration—to name a few. This new judicial activity can be traced to various sources, among them the emergence of public interest law firms and interest groups committed to social change through the courts, and to various changes in the law itself that have made access to the courts easier. The propensity for bringing difficult social questions to the judiciary for resolution is likely to persist. This book is the first comprehensive study of the capacity of courts to make and implement social policy. Donald L. Horowitz, a lawyer and social scientist, traces the imprint of the judicial process on the policies that emerge from it. He focuses on a number of important questions: how issues emerge in litigation, how courts obtain their information, how judges use social science data, how legal solutions to social problems are devised, and what happens to judge-made social policy after decrees leave the court house. After a general analysis of the adjudication process as it bears on social policymaking, the author presents four cases studies of litigation involving urban affairs, educational resources, juvenile courts and delinquency, and policy behavior. In each, the assumption and evidence with which the courts approached their policy problems are matched against data about the social settings from which the cases arose and the effects the decrees had. The concern throughout the book is to relate the policy process to the policy outcome. From his analysis of adjudication and the findings of his case studies the author concludes that the resources of the courts are not adequate to the new challenges confronting them. He suggests

The Judicial Process: Law, Courts, and Judicial Politics is an all-new, concise yet comprehensive core text that introduces students to the nature and significance of the judicial process in the United States and across the globe. It is social scientific in its approach, situating the role of the courts and their impact on public policy within a strong foundation in legal theory, or political jurisprudence, as well as legal scholarship. Authors Christopher P. Banks and David M. O’Brien do not shy away from the politics of the judicial process, and offer unique insight into cutting-edge and highly relevant issues. In its distinctive boxes, “Contemporary Controversies over Courts” and “In Comparative Perspective,” the text examines topics such as the dispute pyramid, the law and morality of same-sex marriages, the “hardball politics” of judicial selection, plea bargaining trends, the right to counsel and “pay as you go” justice, judicial decisions limiting the availability of class actions, constitutional courts in Europe, the judicial role in creating major social change, and the role lawyers, juries and alternative dispute resolution techniques play in the U.S. and throughout the world. Photos, cartoons, charts, and graphs are used throughout the text to facilitate student learning and highlight key aspects of the judicial process.

Known for shedding light on the link among the courts, public policy, and the political environment, Judicial Process in America provides a comprehensive overview of the American judiciary. In this Tenth Edition, authors Robert A. Carp, Ronald Stidham, Kenneth L. Manning, and Lisa M. Holmes examine the recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage and health care subsidies, the effect of three women justices on the Court’s patterns of decision, and the policy-making role of state tribunals. Original data on the decision-making behavior of the Obama trial judges—which are unavailable anywhere else—ensure this text’s position as a standard bearer in the field.

Standard texts on law, courts, and judicial policymaking offer a collection of facts and details about the intricacies of the American legal system and judicial decision-making, but they often ignore how law and courts fit within broader political and policy-making processes. Judicial Policymaking: Readings on Law, Politics, and Public Policy takes a different approach. It provides a broad range of materials, including scholarly writings, newspaper articles, and political cartoons, to give readers a set of tools for exploring the complex and varied role of law and courts in contemporary American society. The book explores topics such as the core promises of and limits on law and courts, American courts compared to those abroad, the possibility of replacing such a costly and unpredictable American legal system, and the question of the American legal system serving core democratic values. This new edition features updated reading selections that explore relevant and recent topics, and all readings are supplemented with brief introductory essays, review questions, and suggestions for further course materials, such as movies and documentaries, which enrich and enliven the study of law, politics, and public policymaking. Judicial Policymaking can be used as both a standalone text and an invaluable supplement to standard textbooks.

Social scientists have convincingly documented soaring levels of political, legal, economic, and social inequality in the United States. Missing from this picture of rampant inequality, however, is any attention to the significant role of state law and courts in establishing policies that either ameliorate or exacerbate inequality. In Judging Inequality, political scientists James L. Gibson and Michael J. Nelson demonstrate the influential role of the fifty state supreme courts in shaping the widespread inequalities that define America today, focusing on court-made public policy on issues ranging from educational equity and adequacy to LGBT rights to access to justice to worker’s rights. Drawing on an analysis of an original database of nearly 6,000 decisions made by over 900 judges on 50 state supreme courts over a quarter century, Judging Inequality documents two ways that state high courts have crafted policies relevant to inequality: through substantive policy decisions that fail to advance equality and by rulings favoring more privileged litigants (typically known as “upperdogs”). The authors discover that whether court-sanctioned policies lead to greater or lesser inequality depends on the ideologies of the justices serving on these high benches, the policy preferences of their constituents (the people of their state), and the institutional structures that determine who becomes a judge as well as who decides whether those individuals remain in office. Gibson and Nelson decisively reject the conventional theory that state supreme courts tend to protect underdog litigants from the wrath of majorities. Instead, the authors demonstrate that the ideological compositions of state supreme courts most often mirror the dominant political coalition in their state at a given point in time. As a result, state supreme courts are unlikely to stand as an independent force against the rise of inequality in the United States, instead making decisions compatible with the preferences of political elites already in power. At least at the state high court level, the myth of judicial independence truly is a myth. Judging Inequality offers a comprehensive examination of the powerful role that state supreme courts play in shaping public policies pertinent to inequality. This volume is a landmark contribution to scholarly work on the intersection of American jurisprudence and inequality, one that essentially rewrites the “conventional wisdom” on the role of courts in America’s democracy.