Book contents
- The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Contributors
- Introduction: Past as Prologue
- Part I The Process Is the Punishment
- Part II Court Reform on Trial
- Part III Judicial Policymaking and the Modern State
- 10 Judicial Deference in the Modern State
- 11 The Law of the Workplace
- 12 Administrative “States” of Judicial Policy on Gender-Motivated Violence
- 13 Can Courts Abolish Mass Incarceration?
- 14 Policy-Making by Out-of-Court Settlements: Palestinian Informers at the Israeli High Court of Justice
- Part IV Political Liberalism and the Legal Complex
- Index
- Books in the Series
- References
10 - Judicial Deference in the Modern State
from Part III - Judicial Policymaking and the Modern State
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 April 2019
Book contents
- The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
- Cambridge Studies in Law and Society
- The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- About the Contributors
- Introduction: Past as Prologue
- Part I The Process Is the Punishment
- Part II Court Reform on Trial
- Part III Judicial Policymaking and the Modern State
- 10 Judicial Deference in the Modern State
- 11 The Law of the Workplace
- 12 Administrative “States” of Judicial Policy on Gender-Motivated Violence
- 13 Can Courts Abolish Mass Incarceration?
- 14 Policy-Making by Out-of-Court Settlements: Palestinian Informers at the Israeli High Court of Justice
- Part IV Political Liberalism and the Legal Complex
- Index
- Books in the Series
- References
Summary
In stark contrast to the ideal of an impartial judge who reaches a decision by impassively applying the law to the facts of a case, decades of research on judicial decision-making show that judicial reasoning is in reality affected by judges’ political views and attitudes, by strategic considerations, and by historical and cultural factors. Attitudinal theorists emphasize the impact of judges’ ideological values on judicial decision-making and point out that, especially where law is ambiguous, partisan voting tends to influence judicial thinking (Epstein, Landes, and Posner 2013; Pritchett 1948; Segal and Cover 1989). Strategic choice scholars qualify the attitudinal model by arguing that judges take into account the preferences of their colleagues, elected officials, and the public, in part to minimize the likelihood that their decisions will be overturned (Epstein and Knight 1998; Wahlbeck, Spriggs, and Maltzman 1998; Epstein and Knight 2000).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Legal Process and the Promise of JusticeStudies Inspired by the Work of Malcolm Feeley, pp. 193 - 214Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Baron, James N., Mittman, Brian S., and Newman, rew E.. 1991. “Targets of Opportunity: Organizational and Environmental Determinants of Gender Integration within the California Civil Service, 1979–1985.” American Journal of Sociology 96 (6): 1362–401.Google Scholar
Belbot, Barbara. 2004. “Report on the Prison Litigation Reform Act: What Have the Courts Decided So Far?” Prison Journal 84 (3): 290–316.Google Scholar
Bisom-Rapp, Susan. 1999. “Bulletproofing the Workplace: Symbol and Substance in Employment Discrimination Law Practice.” Florida State University Law Review 26 (4): 959–1048.Google Scholar
Bordt, Rebecca L. and Musheno, Michael C.. 1988. “Bureaucratic Co-Optation of Informal Dispute Processing: Social Control as an Effect of Inmate Grievance Policy.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25 (1): 7–26.Google Scholar
Brakel, Samuel Jan. 1983. “Ruling on Prisoners’ Grievances.” American Bar Foundation Research Journal 8 (2): 393–426.Google Scholar
Calavita, Kitty and Jenness, Valerie. 2015. Appealing to Justice: Prisoner Grievances, Rights, and Carceral Logic. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carbado, Devon W. and Gulati, Mitu. 2013. Acting White? Rethinking Race in Post-Racial America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. and Gillman, Howard. 1999. Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Colvin, Alexander J. S. 2011. “An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Dover, Tessa L., Major, Brenda, and Kaiser, Cheryl R.. 2014. “Diversity Initiatives, Status, and System-Justifying Beliefs: When and How Diversity Efforts De-Legitimize Discrimination Claims.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17 (4): 485–93.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 1992. “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (6): 1531–76.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Abraham, Steven E., and Erlanger, Howard S.. 1992. “Professional Construction of Law: The Inflated Threat of Wrongful Discharge Doctrine.” Law & Society Review 26 (1): 47–83.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Erlanger, Howard S., and Lande, John. 1993. “Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace.” Law & Society Review 27 (3): 497–534.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Fuller, Sally Riggs, and Mara-Drita, Iona. 2001. “Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law.” American Journal of Sociology 106 (6): 1589–641.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Krieger, Linda H., Eliason, Scott R., Albiston, Catherine R., and Mellema, Virginia. 2011. “When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures.” American Journal of Sociology 117 (3): 888–954.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B. and Petterson, Stephen. 1999. “Symbols and Substance in Organizational Response to Civil Rights Law.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 17: 107–35.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Uggen, Christopher, and Erlanger, Howard S.. 1999. “The endogeneity of legal regulation: Grievance procedures as rational myth 1.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 406–54.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Landes, William M., and Posner, Richard A.. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 2000. “Toward a strategic revolution in judicial politics: A look back, a look ahead.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (3): 625–61.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. and Rubin, Edward L.. 1998. Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America’s Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. and Swearingen, Van. 2004. “The Prison Conditions Cases and the Bureaucratization of American Corrections: Influences, Impacts and Implications.” Pace Law Review 24 (2): 433–76.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. and Swearingen, Van. 2017. “Devolving Standards: California’s Structural Failures in Response to Prisoner Litigation,” in Varieties of Legal Order: The Politics of Adversarial and Bureaucratic Legalism, edited by Barnes, John and Burke, Thomas. New York: Routledge: 155–177.Google Scholar
French, Christopher C. 2012. “Debunking the Myth That Insurance Coverage Is Not Available or Allowed for Intentional Injuries or Damage.” Hastings Business Law Journal 8 (1): 65–102.Google Scholar
Giblin, Edward J. and Ornati, Oscar A.. 1975. “Beyond Compliance: EEO and the Dynamics of Organizational Change.” Personnel 52 (5): 38–50.Google Scholar
Guetzkow, Joshua and Schoon, Eric. 2015. “If you build it, they will fill it: The consequences of prison overcrowding litigation.” Law & Society Review 49 (2): 401–32.Google Scholar
Gunningham, Neil, Kagan, Robert A., and Thornton, Dorothy. 2003. Shades of green: business, regulation, and environment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, rew J.. 2007. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93 (1): 1–44.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Rachlinski, Jeffrey J., and Wistrich, rew J.. 2002.“Judging by Heuristic–Cognitive Illusions in Judicial Decision Making.” Judicature 86 (1): 44–50.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Cheryl R. and Major, Brenda. “A Social Psychological Perspective on Perceiving and Reporting Discrimination.” Law & Social Inquiry 31, no. 4 (2006): 801–30.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Cheryl R., Major, Brenda, Jurcevic, Ines, Dover, Tessa L., Brady, Laura M., and Shapiro, Jenessa R.. 2013. “Presumed Fair: Ironic Effects of Organizational Diversity Structures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104 (3): 504–19.Google Scholar
Kalev, Alexandra, Dobbin, Frank, and Kelly, Erin. 2006.“Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589–617.Google Scholar
Krieger, Linda Hamilton, Best, Rachel Kahn, and Edelman, Lauren B.. 2015. “When ‘Best Practices’ Win, Employees Lose: Symbolic Compliance and Judicial Inference in Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Cases.” Law & Social Inquiry 40 (4): 843–79.Google Scholar
Linenberger, Patricia and Keaveny, Timothy J.. 1981. “Sexual Harassment: The Employer’s Legal Obligations.” Personnel 58 (6): 60–68.Google Scholar
Martin, And rew D. and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.Google Scholar
McGuire, Kevin T. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Political Analysis 12, no. 2 (2004): 128–42.Google Scholar
Mootz, Francis J., III. 1997. “Insurance Coverage of Employment Discrimination Claims.” University of Miami Law Review 52 (1): 1–78.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Reiter, Keramet Ann. 2012. “The Most Restrictive Alternative: A Litigation History of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons, 1960–2006.” In Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, edited by Sarat, Austin, 71–124. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Resnik, Judith. 2016.“Lawyers’ Ethics Beyond the Vanishing Trial: Unrepresented Claimants, De Facto Aggregations, Arbitration Mandates, and Privatized Processes.” Fordham Law Review 85 (5): 1899.Google Scholar
Roma, Elizabeth. 2011. “Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Employment Contracts and the Need for Meaningful Judicial Review.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 12 (3): 5.Google Scholar
Rubin, Ashley T. 2015. “A Neo‐Institutional Account of Prison Diffusion.” Law & Society Review 49 (2): 365–400.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, Heather. 2010. “Mass Incarceration and the Paradox of Prison Conditions Litigation.” Law & Society Review 44 (3‐4): 731–68.Google Scholar
Schlanger, Margo and Shay, Giovanna. 2009. “Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Jails and Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act.” Journal of Constitutional Law 11 (1): 139–54.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (2): 557–65.Google Scholar
Katherine Van Wezel, Stone. 1995. “Mandatory arbitration of individual employment rights: the yellow dog contract of the 1990s.” Denver University Law Review 73: 1017–50.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Jonathan K. 2016. “Demographic History of Federal Judicial Appointments by Sex and Race: 1789–2016, A.” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 26: 92–128.Google Scholar
Sturm, Susan P. 1979. “Mastering Intervention in Prisons.” Yale Law Journal 88 (5): 1062–91.Google Scholar
Swearingen, Van. 2008. “Imprisoning Rights: The Failure of Negotiated Governance in the Prison Inmate Grievance Process.” California Law Review 96 (5): 1353–82.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin A. 2015. “Legal Intermediaries: How Insurance Companies Construct the Meaning of Compliance with Antidiscrimination Laws.” Law & Policy 37 (2): 209–39.Google Scholar
Thorp, Cary D., Jr. 1973. “Fair Employment Practices: The Compliance Jungle.” Personnel Journal 52 (7): 642–49.Google Scholar
Weick, Karl E. 1976. “Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1): 1–19.Google Scholar
Wahlbeck, Paul J., Spriggs, James F., and Maltzman, Forrest. 1998. “Marshalling the Court: Bargaining and Accommodation on the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 294–315.Google Scholar
Cases
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
Costello v. Wainwright, 397 F. Supp. 20, M.D. Fla. (1975).
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).
Furnco Construction v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978).
Grubb v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, Inc., 741 F.2d 1486 (6th Cir. 1984).
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Verniero v. Airforce Academy School District No. 20, 705 F2d. 388, (10th Cir. 1983).
Widmar v. Sun Chemical Corp., 772 F.3d 457, 464 (7th Cir. 2014).
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).