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

To what extent do courts make social and public policy and influence policy change? This innovative text analyzes this question generally and in seven distinct policy areas that play out in both federal and state courts—tax policy, environmental policy, reproductive rights, sex equality, affirmative action, school finance, and same-sex marriage. The authors address these issues through the twin lenses of how state and federal courts must and do interact with the other branches of government and whether judicial policy-making is a form of activist judging. Each chapter uncovers the policymaking aspects of judicial process by investigating the current state of the law, the extent of court involvement in policy change, the responses of other governmental entities and outside actors, and the factors which influenced the degree of implementation and impact of the relevant court decisions. Throughout the book, Howard and Steigerwalt examine and analyze the literature on judicial policy-making as well as evaluate existing measures of judicial ideology, judicial activism, court and legal policy formation, policy change and policy impact. This unique text offers new insights and areas to research in this important field of American politics.

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

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. New to the Seventh Edition ■ New cases through the end of the Supreme Court’s 2018 term. ■ New case studies on the Garland-Gorsuch controversy; plea negotiation (of special relevance to the Trump administration); and the litigation over Obamacare, as well as brief coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation. ■ Expanded coverage of the crisis in the legal profession, sentencing with attention to the rise of mass incarceration and the issue of race, constitutional interpretation and the rise of “originalism,” and same-sex marriage. ■ Updated tables and figures throughout. ■ A new online e-Resource including edited cases, a glossary of terms, and resources for further learning. This text is appropriate for all students of judicial process and policy.

This book argues that many of the basic concepts that we use to describe and analyze our governmental system are out of date. Developed in large part during the Middle Ages, they fail to confront the administrative character of modern government. These concepts, which include power, discretion, democracy, legitimacy, law, rights, and property, bear the indelible imprint of this bygone era's attitudes, and Arthurian fantasies, about governance. As a result, they fail to provide us with the tools we need to understand, critique, and improve the government we actually possess. Beyond Camelot explains the causes and character of this failure, and then proposes a new conceptual framework, drawn from management science and engineering, which describes our administrative government more accurately, and identifies its weaknesses instead of merely bemoaning its modernity. This book's proposed framework envisions government as a network of connected units that are authorized by superior units and that supervise subordinate ones. Instead of using inherited, emotion-laden concepts like democracy and legitimacy to describe the relationship between these units and private citizens, it directs attention to the particular interactions between these units and the citizenry, and to the mechanisms by which government obtains its citizens' compliance. Instead of speaking about law and legal rights, it proposes that we address the way that the modern state formulates policy and secures its implementation. Instead of perpetuating outdated ideas that we no longer really believe about the sanctity of private property, it suggests that we focus on the way that resources are allocated in order to establish markets as our means of regulation. Highly readable, Beyond Camelot offers an insightful and provocative discussion of how we must transform our understanding of government to keep pace with the transformation that government itself has undergone.

This volume proposes a new way of understanding the policymaking process in the United States by examining the complex interactions among the three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial. Collectively across the chapters a central theme emerges, that the U.S. Constitution has created a policymaking process characterized by ongoing interaction among competing institutions with overlapping responsibilities and different constituencies, one in which no branch plays a single static part. At different times and under various conditions, all governing institutions have a distinct role in making policy, as well as in enforcing and legitimizing it. This concept overthrows the classic theories of the separation of powers and of policymaking and implementation (specifically the principal-agent theory, in which Congress and the presidency are the principals who create laws, and the bureaucracy and the courts are the agents who implement the laws, if they are constitutional). The book opens by introducing the concept of adversarial legalism, which proposes that the American mindset of frequent legal challenges to legislation by political opponents and special interests creates a policymaking process different from and more complicated than other parliamentary democracies. The chapters then examine in depth the dynamics among the branches, primarily at the national level but also considering state and local policymaking. Originally conceived of as a textbook, because no book exists that looks at the interplay of all three branches, it should also have significant impact on scholarship about national lawmaking, national politics, and constitutional law. Intro., conclusion, and Dodd's review all give good summaries.

What influences decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court? For decades social scientists focused on the ideology of individual justices. Supreme Court Decision Making moves beyond this focus by exploring how justices are influenced by the distinctive features of courts as institutions and their place in the political system. Drawing on interpretive-historical institutionalism as well as rational choice theory, a group of leading scholars consider such factors as the influence of jurisprudence, the unique characteristics of supreme courts, the dynamics of coalition building, and the effects of social movements. The volume's distinguished contributors and broad range make it essential reading for those interested either in the Supreme Court or the nature of institutional politics. Original essays contributed by Lawrence Baum, Paul Brace, Elizabeth Bussiere, Cornell Clayton, Sue Davis, Charles Epp, Lee Epstein, Howard Gillman, Melinda Gann Hall, Ronald Kahn, Jack Knight, Forrest Maltzman, David O'Brien, Jeffrey Segal, Charles Sheldon, James Spriggs II, and Paul Wahlbeck.

JUDICIAL PROCESS AND JUDICIAL POLICYMAKING focuses on policy in its discussion of the judicial process. The author's approach is based on four major premises: 1) that courts in the U.S. have always played an important role in governing and that their role has increased in recent decades; 2) that judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; 3) that courts make policy in a variety of ways; and 4) that courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators. Rather than limit the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government. Then he brings students into the debate by asking them to form their own evaluations of the organization, function, and impact of the courts on and within government.

How do Supreme Court justices decide their cases? Do they follow their policy preferences? Or are they constrained by the law and by other political actors? The Constrained Court combines new theoretical insights and extensive data analysis to show that law and politics together shape the behavior of justices on the Supreme Court. Michael Bailey and Forrest Maltzman show how two types of constraints have influenced the decision making of the modern Court. First, Bailey and Maltzman document that important legal doctrines, such as respect for precedents, have influenced every justice since 1950. The authors find considerable variation in how these doctrines affect each justice, variation due in part to the differing experiences justices have brought to the bench. Second, Bailey and Maltzman show that justices are constrained by political factors. Justices are not isolated from what happens in the legislative and executive branches, and instead respond in predictable ways to changes in the preferences of Congress and the president. The Constrained Court shatters the myth that justices are unconstrained actors who pursue their personal policy preferences at all costs. By showing how law and politics interact in the construction of American law, this book sheds new light on the unique role that the Supreme Court plays in the constitutional order.