Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T10:31:47.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Catalytic Effect of a Federal Court Decision on a State Legislature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2024

Kathryn Moss
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the way in which a United States district court decision in Texas catalyzed state legislation in that state. The events leading from the decision to the enactment of the statute are chronicled. The paper also describes the processes of bargaining and cooperation among the major actors who used the decree to obtain the new legislation. In the conclusion, factors that facilitated the catalytic impact of the judicial decision are discussed.

Type
Research Note
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 1985 , pp. 147 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by The Law and Society Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author expresses her appreciation to the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas at Austin, for grant support for the larger study of which this paper is a part.

References

References

CHURGIN, Michael J. (1982) “Mandated Change in Texas: The Federal District Court and the Legislature,” in Handler, J.F. and Zatz, J. (eds.), Neither Angels Nor Thieves: Studies in the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
DOLBEARE, Kenneth M. and Phillip E., HAMMOND (1971) The School Prayer Decisions: From Court Policy to Local Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
HARRIS, M. Kay and Dudley P., SPILLER Jr. (1977) After Decision: Implementation of Judicial Decrees in Correctional Settings. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.Google Scholar
JOHNSON, Charles A. and Bradley C., CANON (1984) Judicial Policies Implementation and Impact. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.Google Scholar
LINDBLOM, Charles E. (1959) “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” 19 Public Administration Review 79.Google Scholar
MILNER, Neal A. (1971) The Court and Local Law Enforcement: The Impact of Miranda. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
MOSS, Kathryn (1984) “Institutional Reform Through Litigation,” 58 Social Service Review 421.Google Scholar
MOSS, Kathryn and Louis A., ZURCHER (1983) “Litigating Institutional Reform: Structural Influences on the Negotiation Process in a Mental Retardation Lawsuit,” 4 Deviant Behavior 333.Google Scholar
NEUSTADT, Richard E. (1960) Presidential Power. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
WASBY, Stephen L. (1970) The Impact of the United States Supreme Court-Some Perspectives. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
WASBY, Stephen L. (1976) Small Town Police and the Supreme Court: Hearing the Word. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
WEINBERG, Martha Wagner (1977) Managing the State. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Logan v. Arafeh, 346 F. Supp. 1265 (D. Conn. 1972), aff'd sub nom. Briggs v. Arafeh, 411 U.S. 911 (1973).Google Scholar
Luna v. Van Zandt, 554 F. Supp. 68 (S.D. Tex. 1982).Google Scholar