Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • Chapter 31 - Regulating Access to the National Courts

  • from Section C: Justiciability
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Harvard Law School, Massachusetts
  • Book:
    The Hughes Court
    Published online:
    13 January 2022
    Print publication:
    03 February 2022, pp 803-850

  • Summary

    Justiciability law deals with the who, when, and where of litigation. The Court addressed the “who” question when it raised questions about the expansive use of class actions in a case seeking to block sales of homes to African American buyers. Other cases dealt with the application of rules waiving any requirement that civil liberties cases in the federal courts have a minimum financial amount at stake and the propriety of federal courts staying their hands in civil rights cases to see what the state courts would do about state law questions bound up with the federal ones. The Court also elaborated on the defition of a “federal question” for purposes of federal jurisdiction. Overall the cases show how substantially Frankfurter’s vision about the limited scope of national judicial power had been accepted by the Court.

  • Defending the status quo across venues and coalitions: evidence from California interest groups

  • Frédéric Varone, Karin Ingold, Charlotte Jourdain
  • Journal:
    Journal of Public Policy / Volume 37 / Issue 1 / March 2017
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 August 2016, pp. 1-26

  • This study investigates the conditions under which pro-status quo groups increase their advocacy success during an entire policymaking process. It scrutinises whether pro-status quo defenders who are involved in multiple institutional venues and who join many coalitions of interest groups are able to achieve their policy preferences. A case study focussing on the regulation of stem cell research in California traces the policymaking process and the related advocacy activities of interest groups in legislative, administrative, judicial and direct democratic venues. The empirical results, which are based on a formal social network analysis, reveal that very few groups are multivenue players and members of several coalitions. In addition, occupying a central network position is insufficient for the pro-status quo groups to improve their advocacy success.