Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T01:49:26.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Costs and Benefits of American Policy-Making Venues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Aaron J. Ley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many law and policy scholars consider judges inimical to good public policymaking, and the criticisms they level on the judiciary implicitly reflect some of the concerns raised by Alexander Bickel and other critics. Despite the charge by critics that judges are institutionally ill equipped to participate in the policy-making process and that legal processes are costly, there are reasons to believe otherwise. This article uses field interviews and three case studies of an environmental dispute in the Pacific Northwest to show that the judiciary can be an institutional venue that enhances public input, can be more inclusive than other venues, and produces positive-sum outcomes when other venues cannot. The findings also suggest that legislative and agency policymaking are just as contentious and costly as judicial policy-making processes.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 91 - 126
Copyright
© 2014 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 would like to thank Cornell W. Clayton, J. Mitchell Pickerill, Edward P. Weber, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice in preparation of this article. Carissa Green provided invaluable editing suggestions to prepare this manuscript for publication.

References

Ackerman, Bruce (1991) We the People: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas (1992) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Rowland, & Flint, John (2001) “Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies,” 33 Social Research Update 1–4.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb (2004) “Adversarial Legalism, the Rise of Judicial Policymaking, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine,” in Miller, M., & Barnes, J., eds., Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press. 35–50.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb (2009) “In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility,” 34 Law & Social Inquiry 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Alexander M. (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch of Government: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Binder, Sarah A. (2003) Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H. (1990) The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Thomas F. (2002) Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle Over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
Busch, Christopher B., Kirp, David L., & Schoenholz, Daniel F. (1999) “Taming Adversarial Legalism: The Port of Oakland's Dredging Saga Revisited,” 2 NYU J. of Law and Public Policy 179–216.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. (1994–1995) “Separate Branches—Separate Politics: Judicial Enforcement of Congressional Intent,” 109 Political Science Q. 843–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crotty, Patricia McGee (1987) “The New Federalism Game: Primacy Implementation of Environmental Policy,” 2 Publius 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (1957) “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” 6 J. of Public Law 279–95.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A., & Lindblom, Charles E. (1953) Politics, Economics, and Welfare. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Daniels, Stephen, & Martin, Joanne (1995) Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform. Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation, Northwestern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha A. (2004) Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics, 2nd ed. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Dietz, Diane (2007) “Burn Ban, Rekindled,” The Register-Guard, April 8, 2007, sec. A.Google Scholar
Duin, Steve (1989) “Kerans Meets Field Fires with Fire,” The Oregonian, April 16, 1989, sec. E.Google Scholar
Ely, John Hart (1980) Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Engel, David M. (1984) “The Oven Bird's Song: Insiders, Outsiders, and Personal Injuries in an American Community,” 18 Law & Society Rev. 551–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R. (2009) Making Rights Real: Activists, Bureaucrats, and the Creation of the Legalistic State. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farhang, Sean (2010) The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frymer, Paul (2003) “Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Relations, 1935–1985,” 97 American Political Science Rev. 483–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Lon (1978) “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication,” 92 Harvard Law Rev. 353–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Mark (1998) “An Oil Strike in Hell: Contemporary Legends about the Justice System,” 40 Arizona Law Rev. 717–52.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom (2003) Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann (1991) Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goodsell, Charles T. (1983) The Case for Bureaucracy. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Haltom, William, & McCann, Michael (2004) Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, David, et al. (1997) Estimates of the Benefits and Costs from Reductions in Grass Seed Field Burning. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Donald L. (1977) The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., & Shipan, Charles R. (2002) Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobi, Tonja (2009) “The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States,” 38 J. of Empirical Legal Studies 205–33.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles O. (1994) The Presidency in a Separated System. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. (2001) Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarman, Michael J. (1996) “Rethinking the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Revolutions,” 82 Virginia Law Rev. 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M. (2004) “Review: American Adversarialism,” 38 Law & Society Rev. 349–83.Google Scholar
Landes, William M., & Posner, Richard A. (1975) “The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective,” 18 J. of Law, Economics, and Organization 875–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, Lynn (1998) “Theorizing about Trial Courts: Lawyers, Policymaking, and Tobacco Litigation,” 23 Law & Social Inquiry 897–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael, & Haltom, William (2006) “On Analyzing Legal Culture: A Reply to Kagan,” 31 Law & Social Inquiry 739–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCool, Daniel (1989) “Subgovernments and the Impact of Policy Fragmentation and Accommodation,” 8 Policy Studies Rev. 264–87.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Wayne V. (1990) The Appeal of Civil Law: A Political-Economic Analysis of Litigation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep (1983) Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep (1985) “The Politics of Partnership,” 45 Public Administration Rev. 653–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep (1994) Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Mosher, Frederick C. (1982) Democracy and the Public Service, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Walter (1991) The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Pickerill, J. Mitchell (2004) Constitutional Deliberation in Congress: The Impact of Judicial Review in a Separated System. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Pickerill, J. Mitchell, & Clayton, Cornell W. (2004) “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism,” 2 Perspectives on Politics 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pralle, Sarah (2003) “Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change,” 23 J. of Public Policy 233–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabkin, Jeremy (1989) Judicial Compulsions: How Public Law Distorts Public Policy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ringquist, Evan (1993) Environmental Protection at the State Level. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald N. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rourke, Francis E. (1984) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy, Third Edition. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A., & Jenkins-Smith, Hank (1999) “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment,” in Sabatier, P., ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 117–166.Google Scholar
SAFE (2002) “Conflicting Missions: DEQ and ISDA—Smoke Management Efforts 2002,” A White Paper.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, & Grossman, Joel B. (1975) “Courts and Conflict Resolution: Problems in the Mobilization of Adjudication,” 69 American Political Science Rev. 1200–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin (1988) Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration. Athens, GA: The Univ. of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon (2009) Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreen, Marinus (1992) “Rare Populations, Hidden Populations, and Link-Tracing Designs: What and Why?,” 36 Bulletin of Sociological Methodology 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, David B. (1951) The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip (2002) “Overview,” in Kip Viscusi, W., ed., Regulation through Litigation. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. 1–27.Google Scholar
Weber, Edward P. (1998) Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Herbert (1959) “Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law,” 73 Harvard Law Rev. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. (2005) “ ‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court,” 99 American Political Science Rev. 583–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. (1989) Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Yin, Robert K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar