Drawing on forty‐one interviews with both documented and undocumented Latino restaurant workers in San Jose, California, and Houston, Texas, this article examines how documentation status shapes the legal consciousness of immigrant workers. I identify three common narratives that undocumented workers provide to justify not making claims on workplace protection. First, I highlight that an ever‐present fear of deportation inhibits any formal confrontation. Second, I demonstrate how undocumented status leaves undocumented immigrants with a particularly pragmatic and short‐term understanding of their working life in the United States, rendering their working conditions temporary and endurable to them. Third, I expand Gordon and Lenhardt's (2008) discussion of the centrality of work to the American conception of citizenship. I reiterate that this particular sense of belonging is situated vis‐à‐vis other low‐wage workers. These findings provide sociolegal scholars important theoretical contributions for crafting a research agenda on the role of undocumented status and legal mobilization.

According to the state action doctrine, the Constitution restricts the activities of governmental but not private entities. Despite this rule's apparent simplicity, the Supreme Court has been clearly uncomfortable with precedents like Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) and has varied considerably in its receptiveness to state action claims from 1940 to 1990. The attitudinal model provides barely a beginning in accounting for both Shelley and changes in state action limitations. While liberal justices did initially relax state action requirements and conservative justices subsequently tightened them, that explanation ignores changes in the NAACP's litigation strategy, the Court's creation of doctrinal alternatives, and powerful civil rights legislation that together produced a sharp decline in state action claims involving race after 1970. These nonattitudinal “regime politics” factors enable a more complete and nuanced understanding of the state action field and help us to see the Court as collaborative rather than independent, dependent, or countermajoritarian.

We use this article to argue for greater recognition of legally imposed spatial exclusion—banishment—as a (re)emerging and consequential social control practice. Although the new social control techniques that entail banishment are buttressed by a blend of civil, administrative, and criminal law, they are best understood as punitive in nature. This argument is supported by two empirical findings. First, interviews with the banished indicate that spatial exclusion often has significant negative consequences akin to those identified by Sykes (1958) in his seminal account of the pains of imprisonment. Second, court data show that the growing use of civil and administrative banishment has increased the number of criminal cases involving allegations of noncompliance. These findings suggest that analysts of punishment might usefully broaden their focus to include phenomena that combine civil, criminal, and legal authority, and are not defined as punishment by their advocates.

Thanks to the civil rights movement, women and racial and ethnic minorities increasingly hold positions of public authority—but they experience and exercise this authority differently from white men. Based on 162 narratives collected from 49 US local government officials (city administrators and police), I find that women, minorities, and younger officials in positions of authority face a paradox of rules. Because they have lower social status with the public and within their organizations, they must rely on formal and explicit rules as a key basis for their authority, but such reliance causes their very authority to be questioned. Social status based on implicit assumptions about social identities, including race or ethnicity, sex, and age, originates outside of organizations and has effects society wide. This study shows that social status continues to permeate US local government organizations in both subtle and explicit ways, even in bureaucratic settings that are formally committed to merit and professional norms.

The bifurcation of capital trials into determinations of guilt and sentencing presents defense advocates with what seem to be two distinct domains of knowledge—one apparently “legal” in character, the other “human.” But this epistemological division is actually not so clear in practice. This article dissects the procedural and strategic mechanisms through which these two domains unsettle and reconstitute the other. I provide a historical, empirically grounded account that explicitly articulates the connections between developments in legal procedure, prevailing standards of care concerning the need to conduct humanistic investigations of mitigating factors, and the on‐the‐ground trial practice of “frontloading” as a defense strategy. Drawing from documentary research, interview data with leading capital defense practitioners, and analytical observations based on my own experience as a mitigation specialist, this article presents itself as a case study of the processes of mutually constitutive rupturing that reconfigure the categories of the legal and the human.

This article examines the domestic impact of supranational human rights litigation on acknowledgment of state violence in the context of macroprocesses of global governance. The article's argument is that the impact of supranational human rights litigation on the process of acknowledgment must be seen through counternarratives on state violence. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of the truth claims and denial strategies that emerged from the European Court of Human Rights proceedings on state violence during Turkey's struggle against the armed group the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It assesses these in the context of the human rights reforms that were created following pressure from European‐level governance processes. The article argues that attention must be paid to agency in acknowledgment and truth‐telling processes, and points to the limits of technical‐bureaucratic forms of human rights reform interventions in the context of state violence.

This mixed‐method analysis examines the effects of repeat participation on disputing at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Differences between disputants in terms of their experience with WTO disputing processes affect the likelihood of a dispute transitioning to a panel review in distinct ways, depending upon the configuration of the parties. More experienced complainants tend to achieve settlements, while more experienced respondents tend to refuse conciliation. Strategies of experienced respondents are derived from the expertise generated from repeated direct participation and the normalcy of disputing for repeat players as well as the benefits accruing from a reputation for being unlikely to settle. Repeat players also seek to avoid disputes expected to produce unfavorable jurisprudence but do not actively try to create new case law through the selection of disputes. This research demonstrates a dynamic learning process in how parties use international legal forums and thus extends sociolegal scholarship beyond the nation‐state.

This article develops the notion of legal charisma by analyzing the Taiping Rebellion in mid‐nineteenth‐century China. The concept of legal charisma seeks to capture those normally inchoate aspects of law that transcend its institutionalized incarnations and empower its subjects to act out visions of the universal, often in anarchic and unpredictable ways. The article further suggests that such charismatic legal behavior, in spite of its anarchic qualities, provides an important means through which systems of legal authority revitalize and strengthen their hold over legal subjects. The Taiping Rebellion provides an example of both these facets of legal charisma; the rebellion drew on visions of collective empowerment inherent in a newly articulated legal code to act out a challenge to existing social institutions—even as this same code came to assert an ever‐tightening grip on the lives of the Taiping population.

This article traces cultural defense as a discursive realization‐in‐context, rather than as a legal‐doctrinal figure, in a Belgian real‐life criminal trial. In examining the defense plea for a Turkish man accused of battery, three discursive techniques are identified for making Cultural Otherness visible: de‐individualization, reporting preparatory meetings with the client, and supplying ethnographic “expert” knowledge that transforms the client into the “object” of discourse. Apart from providing information about the defendant's background, cultural defenses also involve particular modes of behaviorally orienting toward the defendant in the courtroom. Otherness must be enacted in court, and to this end attorneys often actively disaffiliate themselves from their clients, marking them as impenetrable, mute, and unemancipated. In doing so, they draw extensively upon the indexical and iconic modalities of talk, which is convenient because the matrix of sameness and difference on which the cultural defense is founded escapes formal legal definition.

Since the detention of General Pinochet in London in 1998 on charges of crimes against humanity, Chile's judges have sentenced more former officials of the military regime for human rights violations than judges of any other country in Latin America. This article argues that the prosecutorial turn reflects the judiciary's attempt to atone for its complicity with the dictatorship. The London arrest created pressure for prosecution of Pinochet‐era human rights violations; but it is the contest over the judiciary's legacy, as an important piece of postauthoritarian memory struggles, that explains why Chile's notoriously illiberal judiciary ceded to that pressure. By reconceptualizing judicial culture as contested, heterogeneous, and dynamic, this article opens the door to richer understandings of judicial politics, transitional justice, and the reception of international human rights.

This article analyzes the issue of water contamination in Kashechewan, Ontario, Canada. Through an inquiry into the way in which water contamination in one Aboriginal community was handled by the local and federal governments, this article examines processes of ongoing colonialism in Canada. Drawing on an array of sources, this article explores three features pertinent to this water crisis: historical forms of legal violence, symbolic forms of representation concerning the relationship between nationalism and the governance of race in liberal democracies, and the importance of the case study approach when examining legalized forms of violence. By examining connections between race, nationalism, and legal violence, this article explores the ways in which biopolitical forms of racial governance require an analysis that links legal violence and structural violence to historical and symbolic forms of representation.

Establishing the pattern of crime is fundamental for the successful investigation of international crimes (genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). A pattern of crime is the aggregate of multiple incidents that share common features related to the victims, the perpetrators, and the modus operandi. Pattern evidence and analysis have been used successfully, mainly in the investigation of large‐scale killings, destruction, and displacement; the use for sexual violence charges has been remarkably more limited. There is a need to overcome this gap by setting proper methods of data collection and analysis. At the level of evidence collection, under‐reporting should be addressed through victimization surveys or secondary analysis of data available from different sources. At the level of analysis, the available evidence needs to be subject to impartial examination beyond the pre‐conceptions of the conflict parties and advocacy groups, in compliance with scientific standards for quantitative, qualitative, and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) methods. Reviewing the different investigative experiences and jurisprudence will help to set the right methodology and contribute most efficiently to putting an end to the impunity regarding sexual crimes.

This article examines how cause lawyering can flourish under authoritarianism. Using the case of Hong Kong, it argues that the process of the sovereignty transition between the 1980s and 1997 contributed to the emergence of cause lawyering by establishing a favorable legal opportunity structure, by creating a political structure that provides incentive for lawyers‐cum‐politicians to engage in cause lawyering, and by prompting a few dedicated foreign human rights lawyers to move their practices to Hong Kong. Apart from the factors related to the sovereignty transition, other factors also facilitated the rise of cause lawyering in Hong Kong, including a rights‐receptive judiciary, an autonomous legal profession, and a government‐funded legal aid system.

Contemporary Law and Society scholars emphasize focused study of “law and the economy” yet empirical work on the legal implications of important economic transformations of the late twentieth century is limited. To address this issue, I analyze Canadian wrongful dismissal claims heard to judgment between 1981 and 1997 to understand how judges grappled with contradictions that arose between classic legal doctrine on the employment relationship, unstable economic conditions that limited employment opportunities for plaintiffs, and new business ideologies about employee expendability and flexibility. Findings demonstrate that judicial rhetoric was attentive to the contradictions that arose with the new economy, and unique responses were developed. These responses, however, varied according to specific socioeconomic contexts embedded within the seventeen‐year period under study. I conclude by suggesting the development of more dynamic theories of law and the economy to capture the ways in which law shifts in response to changing economic contexts.

The demeanor exhibited by a judge is a key element in criminal proceedings, especially in direct interactions with the defendant, defense representatives, and prosecutors. The judicial demeanor(s) displayed must meet the normative confines of the judicial role—primarily impartiality—within the practical constraints of long case lists, when interactions are subject to considerable time pressure.

Drawing on findings from an extensive national court observation study, this article examines the varied demeanors displayed by magistrates—the presiding judicial officers—in Australia's lower courts. It explores the complex meanings of these demeanors, and considers how they may enhance or undermine the legitimacy of judicial authority.

In the “self‐governance era” of indigenous‐state relations, there is a growing interest in the first‐order question of tribal governance: who are the members of recognized tribes, and how are they chosen? Tribal constitutions contain formal tribal membership criteria but are not ordinarily in the public domain. This article presents findings from a study of the membership rules used in more than seven hundred current and historical tribal constitutions and codes. It offers a comparative analysis to explain significant differences between North American and Australasian tribal constitutionalism, particularly in the administration of descent, multiple membership, and disenrollment. It advances the argument that tribes self‐constitute in ways that are more relational and less ascriptive than is suggested in current political theory and policy; that existing representations of tribes obscure nontribal expressions of indigeneity, on which tribes depend; and that these expressions should be officially supported in public law and policy.

Internal and international conflicts can often involve a level of impunity that allows sexual violence to persist unchecked by military and political leaders. The recent reversal by an appeals panel at the International Criminal Court of a pretrial decision not to charge President al‐Bashir of Sudan with genocide in Darfur offers an important foundation for introducing new types of evidence that can increase the investigation and prosecution of sexual violence during conflicts. The reversal cited the incorrect use of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when the lesser standard of “reasonable grounds” applied. Social science provides methods and measures that can be uniquely used to develop reasonable grounds evidence, for example, to demonstrate the roles of physical perpetrators acting together in horizontal relationships, as well as to establish the indirect participation through vertical relationships of higher‐level defendants, in a chain of command of superior responsibility. We illustrate these points by presenting social science evidence of the responsibility of President al‐Bashir and middle‐ and lower‐level figures in genocidal violence in Darfur.