Skip to main content
×
×
Home
Rights and Retrenchment

Book description

This groundbreaking book contributes to an emerging literature that examines responses to the rights revolution that unfolded in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Using original archival evidence and data, Stephen B. Burbank and Sean Farhang identify the origins of the counterrevolution against private enforcement of federal law in the first Reagan Administration. They then measure the counterrevolution's trajectory in the elected branches, court rulemaking, and the Supreme Court, evaluate its success in those different lawmaking sites, and test key elements of their argument. Finally, the authors leverage an institutional perspective to explain a striking variation in their results: although the counterrevolution largely failed in more democratic lawmaking sites, in a long series of cases little noticed by the public, an increasingly conservative and ideologically polarized Supreme Court has transformed federal law, making it less friendly, if not hostile, to the enforcement of rights through lawsuits.

Reviews

'Rights and Retrenchment is a masterwork. Drawing on their path-breaking empirical research, Burbank and Farhang provide a revelatory analysis … This book is truly essential reading not only for political scientists and legal scholars but for anyone concerned about the future of the American regulatory state.'

Robert A. Kagan - Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Law, University of California, Berkeley

'Rights and Retrenchment is a scholarly lightning bolt, mixing rigorous empiricism and close, institution-level analysis of civil rulemaking in a field that has too often lacked either. It’s an instant classic in explaining how we got to the present while also charting a new path forward for procedure scholars.'

David Freeman Engstrom - Bernard D. Bergreen Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School, California

'Burbank and Farhang trace in detail how conservatives have sought to defang private enforcement of protections afforded by federal law … This book is essential reading for everyone interested in the state of twenty-first century politics in the United States.'

Herbert Kritzer - Marvin J. Sonosky Chair of Law and Public Policy, University of Minnesota Law School

'Burbank and Farhang provide an outstanding exploration of the intersection of law and politics. They examine in rich detail the many ways conservatives have tried to limit private enforcement of federal laws … They use a variety of forms of evidence … to make a convincing argument about institutional support for retrenchment.'

R. Shep Melnick - Tip O’Neill Professor, Boston College, Massachusetts

'This impressive new book demonstrates convincingly how private litigation in the courts is embedded in larger political contests over the scale and scope of federal rights … a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the complex politics and institutional dynamics surrounding private enforcement of federal law.'

Margaret Lemos - Robert G. Seaks LL. B. ’34 Professor of Law, Duke University, North Carolina

'In this elegant study, Stephen B. Burbank and Sean Farhang demonstrate that the Supreme Court has dramatically undercut enforcement of federal rights by making it harder for plaintiffs to sue in the first place. Rich in data, thoughtful and perceptive in analysis, this book is a landmark contribution to our understanding of the Supreme Court and the meaningful enforcement of federal rights.'

Charles Epp - Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas

Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send
    ×

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.
×
Aberbach, Joel D. Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1990.
Arnold, Richard S.Judges and the Public.” Litigation 4 (1983): 57.
Bagenstos, Samuel R.Who Is Responsible for the Stealth Assault on Civil Rights?Michigan Law Review 114 (2016): 893911.
Baird, Vanessa A. and Gangl, Amy. “Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media's Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on Perceptions of Fairness.” Political Psychology Review 27 (2006): 597614.
Barnes, Jeb. “Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (2008): 63648.
Barnes, Jeb and Burke, Thomas F.. How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation and the Struggle over Injury Compensation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Baum, Lawrence. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
Beisner, John H.Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil Litigation Reform.” Duke Law Journal 60 (2010): 54796.
Bickel, Alexander M. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.
Bierschbach, Richard A. and Stein, Alex. “Overenforcement.” Georgetown Law Journal 93 (2005): 174381.
Bradt, Andrew. “A Radical Proposal: The Multidistrict Litigation Act of 1968.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165 (forthcoming 2016).
Brady, David W. and Volden, Craig. Revolving Gridlock Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, 2nd edn. Boulder: Westview Press, 2005.
Brown, Winifred R. Federal Rulemaking: Problems and Possibilities. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1981.
Burbank, Stephen B.The Rules Enabling Act of 1934.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 (1982): 1015197.
Burbank, Stephen B.Sanctions in the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Some Questions About Power.” Hofstra Law Review 11 (1983): 9971012.
Burbank, Stephen B.Afterwords: A Response to Professor Hazard and a Comment on Marrese.” Cornell Law Review 659 (1985): 65965.
Burbank, Stephen B.Proposals to Amend Rule 68 – Time to Abandon Ship.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 19 (1986): 42540.
Burbank, Stephen B.The Costs of Complexity.” Michigan Law Review 85 (1987): 146387.
Burbank, Stephen B.The Transformation of American Civil Procedure: The Example of Rule 11.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137 (1989a): 192567.
Burbank, Stephen B.Hold the Corks: A Comment on Paul Carrington's ‘Substance’ and ‘Procedure’ in the Rules Enabling Act.” Duke Law Journal (1989b): 101246.
Burbank, Stephen B.Ignorance and Procedural Law Reform: A Call for a Moratorium.” Brooklyn Law Review 59 (1993): 84156.
Burbank, Stephen B.Implementing Procedural Change: Who, How, Why, and When?Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 22150.
Burbank, Stephen B.Semtek, Forum Shopping, and Federal Common Law.” Notre Dame Law Review 77 (2002): 102755.
Burbank, Stephen B.Procedure, Politics and Power: The Role of Congress.” Notre Dame Law Review 79 (2004a): 1677744.
Burbank, Stephen B.Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting towards Bethlehem or Gomorrah?Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 1 (2004b): 591626.
Burbank, Stephen B.Judicial Accountability to the Past, Present, and Future: Precedent, Politics and Power.” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 28 (2005): 1962.
Burbank, Stephen B.Aggregation on the Couch: The Strategic Uses of Ambiguity and Hypocrisy.” Columbia Law Review 106 (2006a): 192454.
Burbank, Stephen B.Alternative Career Resolution II: Changing the Tenure of Supreme Court Justices.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006b): 151150.
Burbank, Stephen B.Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability, and Interbranch Relations.” Georgetown Law Journal 95 (2007): 90927.
Burbank, Stephen B.The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in Historical Context: A Preliminary View.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 156 (2008): 1439552.
Burbank, Stephen B.Pleading and the Dilemmas of Modern American Procedure.” Judicature 93 (2009): 10920.
Burbank, Stephen B.On the Study of Judicial Behaviors: Of Law, Politics, Science, and Humility.” In What's Law Got to Do with It? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, and What's at Stake, edited by Geyh, Charles Gardner, 4170. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1543618.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Federal Court Rulemaking and Litigation Reform: An Institutional Approach.” Nevada Law Journal 15 (2015): 155996.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “The Subterranean Counterrevolution: The Supreme Court, the Media, and Litigation Reform.” DePaul Law Review 65 (2016a): 293321.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Farhang, Sean. “Reforming Civil Rights Litigation: Why the Court Succeeded Where Congress Failed.” In The Rights Revolution Revisited, edited by Dodd, Linda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016b.
Burbank, Stephen B., Farhang, Sean, and Kritzer, Herbert. “Private Enforcement.” Lewis and Clark Law Review 17 (2013): 637722.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Friedman, Barry. “Reconsidering Judicial Independence.” In Judicial Independence at the Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by Burbank, Stephen B. and Friedman, Barry, 942. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2002.
Burbank, Stephen B., Plager, S. Jay, and Ablavsky, Gregory. “Leaving the Bench, 1970–2009: The Choices Federal Judges Make, What Influences Those Choices, and Their Consequences.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 161 (2012): 1102.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Subrin, Stephen N.. “Litigation and Democracy: Restoring a Realistic Prospect of Trial.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46 (2011): 399414.
Burbank, Stephen B. and Wolff, Tobias Barrington. “Redeeming the Missed Opportunities of Shady Grove.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159 (2010): 1776.
Burger, Warren. “The State of the Judiciary.” American Bar Association Journal 56 (1970): 92934.
Burger, Warren. “Address Before the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference.” Journal of Public Law 21 (1972): 27180.
Burger, Warren. “Agenda for 2000 A.D. – A Need for Systematic Anticipation.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 2335. St. Paul: West Publishing Co, 1979.
Burger, Warren. “Isn't there a Better Way?American Bar Association Journal 68 (1982): 2747.
Burger, Warren. “Using Arbitration to Achieve Justice.” The Arbitration Journal 40 (1985): 36.
Burke, Thomas. Lawyers, Lawsuits, and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Calabresi, Steven C. and Lindgren, James. “Term Limits for the Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered.” Harvard Journal of Law and Social Policy 29 (2006): 769877.
Caldeira, Gregory A.Courts and Public Opinion.” In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment, edited by John, B. Gates and Charles, A. Johnson, 30334. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1991.
Caldeira, Gregory A. and James, L. Gibson. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 36 (1992): 63564.
Cameron, A. Colin and Trivedi, Pravin K.. Regression Analysis of Court Data, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Carrington, Paul D.Renovating Discovery.” Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 5178.
Carrington, Paul D.Politics and Civil Procedure Rulemaking: Reflections on Experience.” Duke Law Journal 60 (2010): 597667.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Closing the Courthouse Doors to Civil Rights Litigants.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 5 (2003): 53757.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. “Closing the Courthouse Doors.” Denver University Law Review 90 (2012): 31730.
Chen, Anthony S. The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941–1972. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Christenson, Dino P. and Glick, David M.. “Chief Justice Roberts's Health Care Decision Disrobed: The Microfoundations of the Supreme Court's Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (2015): 40318.
Chutkow, Dawn. “The Chief Justice as Executive: Judicial Conference Committee Appointments.” Journal of Law and Courts 2 (2014): 30125.
Clark, Tom C.Foreword (1969).” In 4 Federal Practice and Procedure, edited by Wright, Charles Alan, Miller, Arthur R., and Steinman, Adam N., xviixx. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 2015.
Clark, Tom S. The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Coffee, John C. Jr. Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015.
Collins, Paul M. Jr.Interest Groups and Their Influence on Judicial Policy.” In New Directions in Judicial Politics, edited by McGuire, Kevin T., 22137. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Cooper, Edward H.Revising Civil Rule 56: Judge Mark R. Kravitz and the Rules Enabling Act.” Lewis and Clark Law Review 18 (2014): 591614.
Council for Public Interest Law. Balancing the Scales of Justice: Financing Public Interest Law in America. Washington, DC: Council on Public Interest Law, 1976.
Cox, Adam B. and Miles, Thomas J.. “Judging the Voting Rights Act.” Columbia Law Review 108 (2008): 154.
Cramton, Roger C.Crisis in Legal Services for the Poor.” Villanova Law Review 26 (1981): 52156.
Cross, Frank B.Law Is Politics.” In What's Law Got to Do with It? What Judges Do, Why They Do It, and What's at Stake, edited by Geyh, Charles Gardner, 92113. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2011.
Cushman, Barry. “Mr. Dooley and Mr. Gallup: Public Opinion and Constitutional Change in the 1930s.” Buffalo Law Review 50 (2002): 7102.
Davis, Richard. Decisions and Images: The Supreme Court and the Press. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.
Dahl, Robert A.Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker.” Journal of Public Law 6 (1957): 27995.
Decker, Jefferson. “Lawyers for Reagan: The Conservative Litigation Movement and American Government, 1971–87.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 2009.
Derfner, Armand. “Background and Origin of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Awards Act of 1976.” Urban Law 37 (2005): 65362.
Derfner, Mary Frances. “One Giant Step: The Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976.” Saint Louis University Law Journal 21 (1977): 44151.
Devins, Neal. “Is Judicial Policymaking Countermajoritarian?” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 189201. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
Dodd, Lynda G.The Rights Revolution in the Age of Obama and Ferguson: Policing, the Rule of Law, and the Elusive Quest for Accountability.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2015): 65779.
Donohue, John J. III, and Siegelman, Peter. “The Changing Nature of Employment Discrimination Litigation.” Stanford Law Review 43 (1991): 9831033.
Dunham, Kenneth F.The Future of Court-Annexed Dispute Resolution is Mediation.” Jones Law Review 5 (2001): 3549.
Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wylie and Sons, 1965.
Ely, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Epp, Charles R. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Martin, Andrew D.. “Constitutional Interpretation from a Strategic Perspective.” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 170188. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. “How Business Fares in the Supreme Court.” Minnesota Law Review 97 (2013a): 143173.
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013b.
Epstein, Lee, William, A. Landes, and Richard, A. Posner. “The Best for Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.” Duke Law Journal 64 (2015): 9911022.
Epstein, Lee and Andrew, D. Martin. “Does Public Opinion Influence the Supreme Court? Possibly Yes (But We're Not Sure Why).” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 13 (2010): 26382.
Eskridge, William N. Jr.Reneging on History – Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game.” California Law Review 79 (1991a): 61384.
Eskridge, William N. Jr.Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions.” Yale Law Journal 101 (1991b): 331456.
Eskridge, William and Ferejohn, John. “Virtual Logrolling: How the Court, Congress, and the States Multiply Rights.” Southern California Law Review 68 (1995): 154564.
Fallon, Richard H. Jr.Legitimacy and the Constitution.” Harvard Law Review 118 (2005): 1787853.
Farhang, Sean. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Farhang, Sean. “Legislative-Executive Conflict and Private Statutory Litigation in the United States: Evidence from Labor, Civil Rights, and Environmental Law.” Law and Social Inquiry 37 (2012): 65785.
Farhang, Sean and Wawro, Gregory, “Institutional Dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: Minority Representation under Panel Decision Making.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (2004): 299330.
Farley, John J. III. “Robin Hood Jurisprudence: The Triumph of Equity in American Tort Law.” Saint John's Law Review 65 (1991): 9971021.
Firth, David. “Bias Reduction of Maximum Likelihood Estimates.” Biometrika 80 (1993): 2738.
Flemming, Roy B. and Wood, B. Dan. “The Public and the Supreme Court: Individual Justice Responsiveness to American Policy Moods.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1997): 122450.
Franklin, Charles H. and Kosaki, Liane C.. “Media, Knowledge and Public Evaluations of the Supreme Court.” In Contemplating Courts, edited by Epstein, Lee, 35266. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1995.
Franklin, David L.What Kind of Business-Friendly Court – Explaining the Chamber of Commerce's Success at the Roberts Court.” Santa Clara Law Review 49 (2009): 101957.
Friedenthal, Jack. “The Rulemaking Power of the Supreme Court: A Contemporary Crisis.” Stanford Law Review 27 (1975): 67386.
Friedman, Barry. “Mediated Popular Constitutionalism.” Michigan Law Review 101 (2003): 2596636.
Friedman, Barry. “History, Politics and Judicial Independence.” In Judicial Integrity, edited by Sajó, András, 99114. Leiden: M. Nijhoff, 2004.
Friedman, Barry. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009.
Friedman, Barry and Anna, L. Harvey. “Electing the Supreme Court.” Indiana Law Journal 78 (2003): 12351.
Friedman, Lawrence. Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
Frymer, Paul. Black and Blue: African Americans, the Labor Movement, and the Decline of the Democratic Party. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Galanter, Marc. “Why the ‘Haves' Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 (1974): 95160.
Galanter, Marc. “The Life and Times of the Big Six, or, the Federal Courts since the Good Old Days.” Wisconsin Law Review (1988): 92154.
Galanter, Marc. “Planet of the Aps: Reflections on the Scale of Law and Its Users.” Buffalo Law Review 53 (2006): 1369418.
Galanter, Marc. “More Lawyers than People: The Global Multiplication of Legal Professionals.” In The Paradox of Professionalism: Lawyers and the Possibility of Justice, edited by Cummings, Scott L., 6889. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Galanter, Marc and Henderson, William. “The Elastic Tournament: A Second Transformation of the Big Law Firm.” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 1867920.
Galanter, Marc and Luban, David. “Poetic Justice: Punitive Damage and Legal Pluralism.” American University Law Review 42 (1993): 1393464.
Gardner, Paul J. “The Effect of Media Framing on Public Support for the Supreme Court” (January 9, 2015).
Gelbach, Jonah B.Locking the Door to Discovery – Assessing the Effects of Twombly and Iqbal on Access to Discovery.” Yale Law Journal 121 (2012): 2270345.
Gelbach, Jonah B.Can the Dark Arts of the Dismal Science Shed Light on the Empirical Reality of Civil Procedure?Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation 2 (2014): 22365.
Gelbach, Jonah B.Material Facts in the Debate over Twombly and Iqbal.” Stanford Law Review 68 (2016): 369424.
George, Warren E.Development of the Legal Services Corporation.” Cornell Law Review 61 (1976): 681730.
Gibson, James L. and Caldeira, Gregory A.. “Has Legal Realism Damaged the Legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court?Law and Society Review 34 (2011): 195219.
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Baird, Vanessa A.. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 34358.
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. “The Supreme Court and the U.S. Presidential Election of 2000: Wounds, Self-Inflicted or Otherwise?British Journal of Political Science 33 (2003a): 53556.
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A., and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. “Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2003b): 35467.
Gibson, James L. and Michael, J. Nelson. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court's Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?American Journal of Political Science 59 (2015): 16274.
Gillman, Howard. “How Political Parties Can Use Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States 1875–1891.” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 51124.
Ginn, Martha H., Searles, Kathleen, and Jones, Amanda. “Vouching for the Court? How High Stakes Affect Knowledge and Support of the Supreme Court.” Justice System Journal 36 (2015): 16379.
Ginsburg, Tom. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Goldman, Sheldon. Picking Federal Judges: Lower Court Selection from Roosevelt through Reagan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
Gordon, Robert W.A New Role for Lawyers? Corporate Counsel after Enron.” University of Connecticut Law Review 35 (2003): 1185216.
Gossett, William T., Segal, Bernard G., and Smith, Chesterfield. “Foreword.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 716. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.
Graber, Mark. “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7 (1993): 3573.
Greene, William. Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Publishing, 2003.
Greve, Michael S.Why ‘Defunding the Left’ Failed.” Public Interest 89 (1987): 91106.
Hacker, Jacob S.Privatizing Risk Without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.” American Political Science Review 98 (2004): 24360.
Haltom, William and McCann, Michael. Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Handler, Joel F., Ginsberg, Betsy, and Snow, Arthur. “The Public Interest Law Industry.” In Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis, edited by Weisbrod, Burton, 4279. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Harvey, Anna and Friedman, Barry. “Pulling Punches: Congressional Constraints on the Supreme Court's Constitutional Rulings, 1987–2000.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (2006): 24780.
Hasen, Richard L.End of the Dialogue: Political Polarization, the Supreme Court, and Congress.” Southern California Law Review 86 (2012): 20561.
Hazard, Geoffery C., Gedid, John, and Solwe, StephenAn Historical Analysis of the Binding Effect of Class Suits.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (1998): 1849948.
Heinz, John P., Nelson, Robert L., Sandefur, Rebecca L., and Laumann, Edward O.. Urban Lawyers: The New Social Structure of the Bar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Higginbotham, A. Leon Jr.The Priority of Human Rights in Court Reform.” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 87110. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1979.
Higginbotham, Patrick E.Foreword.” Alabama Law Review 49 (1997): 46.
Higginbotham, Patrick E.Iron Man of the Rules.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 62730.
Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Hixson, Everett L.All Losers Should Pay in Tennessee: How to Amend T.C.A. Section 20-12119 to Deter Meritless Claims.” University of Memphis Law Review 44 (2013): 183228.
Ho, Daniel E. and Quinn, Kevin M.. “Did a Switch in Time Save Nine?Journal of Legal Analysis 2 (2010): 69113.
Hoekstra, Valerie J.The Supreme Court and Local Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 94 (2000): 89100.
Hoekstra, Valerie J. Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Hrina, David J.The Future of IOLTA: Has the Death Knell Been. Sounded for Mandatory IOLTA Programs?Akron Law Review 32 (1999): 30126.
Immergut, Ellen M.The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-Making.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, 5789. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Jacobi, Tania. “The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States.” Journal of Legal Studies 38 (2009): 20533.
Jacobson, Gary. “Partisan Polarization in Presidential Support: The Electoral Connection.” Congress and the Presidency 30 (2003): 136.
Joseph, Gregory P.An Instinct for the Capillary.” Litigation 38 (2012): 910.
Kagan, Robert A. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Kalven, Harry Jr. and Maurice, Rosenfield. “The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit.” University of Chicago Law Review 8 (1941): 684721.
Kaplan, Benjamin. “Continuing Work of the Civil Committee: 1966 Amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (I).” Harvard Law Review 81 (1966): 356416.
Kaplan, Benjamin. “A Prefatory Note.” Boston College Industrial and Commercial Law Review 10 (1969): 497500.
Kaplow, Louis and Shavell, Steven. “Fairness versus Welfare.” Harvard Law Review 114 (2001): 9611388.
Karlan, Pamela S.Disarming the Private Attorney General.” University of Illinois Law Review (2003): 183210.
Katzmann, Robert A. Judging Statutes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Keck, Thomas M. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.
Kersch, Ken I.The Reconstruction of Constitutional Privacy Rights and the New American State.” Studies in American Political Development 16 (2002): 6187.
Kessler, Daniel P. Regulation versus Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.
Kirkham, Francis R.Complex Litigation – Have Good Intentions Gone Awry?” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 20920. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.
Klarman, Michael. “Rethinking the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Revolutions.” Virginia Law Review 82 (1996): 167.
Klonoff, Robert H.The Death of Class Actions.” Washington University Law Review 90 (2013): 729838.
Kravitz, Mark R., Levi, David F., Rosenthal, Lee H., and Scirica, Anthony J., “They Were Meant for Each Other: Professor Edward Cooper and The Rules Enabling Act.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 495526.
Krent, Harold J.Explaining One-Way Fee Shifting.” Virginia Law Review 79 (1993): 203989.
Kritzer, Herbert M. and Richards, Mark J.. “The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search-and-Seizure Jurisprudence.” American Politics Research 33 (2005): 3355.
Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A.. “An Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective.” Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1975): 875901.
Law, Sylvia A.In the Name of Federalism: The Supreme Court's Assault on Democracy and Civil Rights.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 70 (2002): 367432.
Lazarus, Simon and Onek, Joseph. “The Regulators and the People.” Virginia Law Review 57 (1971): 1069108.
Lehne, Richard and Reynolds, John. “The Impact of Judicial Activism on Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 22 (1978): 896904.
Lemos, Margaret H.Special Incentives to Sue.” Minnesota Law Review 95 (2011): 782845.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
Litan, Robert and Nordhaus, William. Reforming Federal Regulation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Lovell, George I. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Lyles, Kevin L. The Gatekeepers: Federal District Courts in the Political Process. Westport: Praeger, 1997.
MacCoun, Robert J.Media Reporting of Jury Verdicts: Is the Tail (of the Distribution) Wagging the Dog?DePaul Law Review 55 (2006): 53962.
Marcus, David. “The Past, Present, and Future of Trans-Substantivity in Federal Civil Procedure.” DePaul Law Review 59 (2010): 371429.
Marcus, David. “Trans-Substantivity and the Processes of American Law.” Brigham Young University Law Review (2013a): 1191250.
Marcus, David. “The History of the Modern Class Action, Part I: Sturm und Drang, 1953–1990.” Washington University Law Review (2013b): 587652.
Marcus, Richard. “Shoes That Did Not Drop.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 46 (2013): 63750.
Marcus, Richard. “‘Looking Backward’ to 1938.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 1691730.
Martin, Andrew D. and Quinn, Kevin M.. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2002): 13453.
Mashaw, Jerry L. Greed, Chaos, and Governance: Using Public Choice to Improve Public Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
McCann, Michael. “Reform Litigation on Trial.” Law and Social Inquiry 21 (1992): 45782.
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.
McCloskey, Robert G. The American Supreme Court, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
McCubbins, Mathew D. and Schwartz, Thomas. “Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 16579.
McGarity, Thomas O.Regulatory Reform in the Reagan Era.” Maryland Law Review 45 (1986): 25373.
McKay, Robert B. Nine for Equality under Law: Civil Rights Litigation: A Report to the Ford Foundation. New York: Ford Foundation, 1977.
McMahon, Kevin J.Constitutional Vision and Supreme Court Decisions: Reconsidering Roosevelt on Race.” Studies in American Political Development 14 (2000): 2050.
McNollgast, . “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 3 (1987): 24378.
McNollgast, . “The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 15 (1999): 180217.
Melnick, R. Shep. Between The Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1994.
Melnick, R. Shep. “Courts and Agencies.” In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, edited by Miller, Mark C. and Barnes, Jeb, 89106. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004.
Melnick, R. Shep. “From Tax and Spend to Mandate and Sue: Liberalism after the Great Society.” In The Great Society and the High Tide of Liberalism, edited by Milkis, Sidney and Mileur, Jerome M., 387410. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005.
Melnick, R. Shep. “Courts and Agencies in the American Civil Rights State.” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, edited by Jenkins, Jeffrey and Milkis, Sidney, 77102. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Mezey, Susan and Olson, Susan, “Fee Shifting and Public Policy: The Equal Access to Justice Act.” Judicature 77 (1993): 1320.
Miller, Arthur R.Of Frankenstein Monsters and Shining Knights: Myth, Reality, and the ‘Class Action Problem’.” Harvard Law Review 92 (1979): 66494.
Miller, Arthur R. The August 1983 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Promoting Effective Case Management and Lawyer Responsibility. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 1984.
Miller, Arthur R.Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Procedure.” New York University Law Review 88 (2013): 286372.
Moe, Terry M.Political Institutions: The Neglected Side of the Story.” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 6 (1990): 21353.
Moore, Patricia H.The Anti-Plaintiff Pending Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Pro-Defendant Composition of the Federal Rulemaking Committees.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 83 (2015): 1083154.
Morriss, Andrew P., Yandle, Bruce, and Dorchak, Andrew. Regulation by Litigation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Murphy, Bruce A. Scalia: A Court of One. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014.
Murphy, Walter F.Reagan's Judicial Strategy.” In Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency, edited by Berman, Larry, 20737. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
Murphy, Walter F. and Tanenhaus, Joseph. “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court: Mapping of Some Prerequisites for Court Legitimation of Regime Changes.” Law and Society Review 2 (1968): 35784.
Nash, Jonathan R.Interparty Judicial Appointments.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 12 (2015): 66485.
Nicholson, Stephen P. and Robert, M. Howard. “Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush v. Gore.” Journal of Politics 65 (2003): 67695.
Nielsen, Laura Beth and Albiston, Catherine. “The Organization of Public Interest Practice: 1975-2004.” North Carolina Law Review 84 (2006): 1591622.
Niemeyer, Paul V.Here We Go Again: Are the Federal Discovery Rules Really in Need of Amendment?Boston College Law Review 39 (1998): 51724.
Note. “Limiting the Section 1983 Action in the Wake of Monroe v. Pape.” Harvard Law Review 82 (1969): 1486511.
O'Brien, David M.The Reagan Judges: His Most Enduring Legacy?” In The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, edited by Jones, Charles O., 60101. London: Chatham House, 1988.
O'Connor, Karen and Epstein, Lee. “Rebalancing the Scales of Justice: Assessment of Public Interest Law.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 7 (1984): 483506.
Pampel, Fred C. Logistic Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000.
Percival, Robert and Miller, Geoffrey. “The Role of Attorney Fee Shifting in Public Interest Litigation.” Law and Contemporary Problems 47 (1984): 23348.
Peretti, Terri Jennings. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Pfander, James E.The Chief Justice, the Appointment of Inferior Officers, and the ‘Court of Law’ Requirement.” Northwestern University Law Review 107 (2013): 112580.
Pickerill, Mitchell and Clayton, Cornell. “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (2004): 23348.
Pierson, Paul. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Pierson, Paul. “The Rise and Reconfiguration of Activist Government.” In The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, edited by Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda, 1938. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Poole, Keith T. and Rosenthal, Howard. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Purcell, Edward A. Jr.From the Particular to the General: Three Federal Rules and the Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 173165.
Quayle, Dan. “Civil Justice Reform.” American University Law Review 41 (1992): 55970.
Quigley, William P.The Demise of Law Reform and the Triumph of Legal Aid: Congress and the Legal Services Corporation from the 1960s through the 1990s.” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 17 (1998): 24164.
Ragozin, Arlene S.The Waiver of Immunity in the Equal Access to Justice Act: Clarifying Opaque Language.” Washington University Law Review 61 (1986): 21744.
Remus, Dana A.The Institutional Politics of Federal Judicial Conduct Regulation.” Yale Law and Policy Review 31 (2012): 3378.
Resnik, Judith. “Fairness in Numbers: A Comment on AT&T v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Turner v. Rogers.” Harvard Law Review 125 (2011): 78171.
Resnik, Judith and Dilg, Lane. “Responding to a Democratic Deficit: Limiting the Powers and the Term of the Chief Justice of the United States.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006): 1575664.
Rhode, Deborah L.Public Interest Law: The Movement at Midlife.” Stanford Law Review 60 (2008): 202786.
Rifkind, Simon. “Are We Asking Too Much of our Courts?” In The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future, edited by Levin, A. Leo and Wheeler, Russell R., 2335. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1979.
Rodriguez, Daniel B.Statutory Interpretation and Political Advantage.” International Review of Law and Economics 12 (1992): 21731.
Rodriguez, Daniel and Weingast, Barry R., “The Positive Political Theory of Legislative History.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151 (2003): 1417542.
Rosenberg, Gerald. “Judicial Independence and the Reality of Political Power.” Review of Politics 54 (1992): 36998.
Ruger, Theodore W.The Judicial Appointment Power of the Chief Justice.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 7 (2004): 341402.
Ruger, Theodore W.The Chief Justice's Special Authority and the Norms of Judicial Power.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154 (2006): 155174.
Ruger, Theodore W.Chief Justice Rehnquist's Appointments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court: An Empirical Perspective.” Northwestern University Law Review 101 (2007): 23958.
Rutledge, Peter B.Arbitration – A Good Deal for Consumers: A Response to Public Citizen.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, 2008.
Salzberger, Eli M.A Positive Analysis of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, or: Why Do We Have an Independent Judiciary?International Review of Law and Economics 13 (1993): 34979.
Scheuerman, Sheila B.Two Worlds Collide: How the Supreme Court's Recent Punitive Damages Decisions Affect Class Actions.” Baylor Law Review 60 (2008): 880940.
Schiller, Reuel E.Rulemaking's Promise: Administrative Law and Legal Culture in the 1960s and 1970s.” Administrative Law Review 53 (2001): 113988.
Scheb II, John M. and William, Lyons. “The Myth of Legality and Public Evaluation of the Supreme Court.” Social Sciences Quarterly 81 (2000): 92840.
Schudson, Michael. The Good Citizen: A History of American Civil Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Cover, Albert D.. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83 (1989): 55765.
Segal, Jeffrey A. and Spaeth, Harold J.. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Segal, Jeffrey A., Westerland, Chad, and Lindquist, Stefanie A.. “Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2011): 89104.
Shapiro, Martin M. Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1988.
Shefter, Martin. Political Parties and the State: The American Historical Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Shugart, Matthew S. and Carey, John M.. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Siegel, Andrew M.The Court against the Courts: Hostility to Litigation as an Organizing Theme in the Rehnquist Court's Jurisprudence.” Texas Law Review 84 (2006): 1097202.
Sisk, Gregory C.The Essentials of the Equal Access to Justice Act: Court Awards of Attorney's Fees for Unreasonable Government Conduct.” Louisiana Law Review 55 (1994): 217360.
Spencer, A. Benjamin. “The Restrictive Ethos in Civil Procedure.” George Washington University Law Review 78 (2010): 35373.
Squire, Peverill. “Politics and Personal Factors in Retirement from the United States Supreme Court.” Political Behavior 10 (1988): 18090.
Staszak, Sarah. “Realizing the Rights Revolution: Litigation and the American State.” Law & Social Inquiry 38 (2013): 22245.
Staszak, Sarah. No Day in Court: Access to Justice and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Steinman, Adam N.The End of an Era: Federal Civil Procedure after the 2015 Amendments.” Emory Law Journal 66 (2016): 153.
Steinmo, Sven H.American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions?” In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, edited by Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin, 10631. Boulder: Westview Press, 1994.
Stempel, Jeffrey W.Politics and Sociology in Federal Civil Rulemaking: Errors of Scope.” Alabama Law Review 52 (2001): 529637.
Stephenson, Matthew. “Court of Public Opinion: Government Accountability and Judicial Independence.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 20 (2004): 37999.
Stewart, Richard. “The Reformation of American Administrative Law.” Harvard Law Review 88 (1975): 1669813.
Stimson, James. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, and Swings. Boulder: West View Press, 1991.
Subrin, Stephen. “How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 135 (1987): 9091002.
Subrin, Stephen and Main, Thomas O.. “The Fourth Era of American Civil Procedure.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (2014): 183995.
Sunderland, Edison R.An Appraisal of English Procedure.” Michigan Law Review 24 (1925): 10929.
Sunderland, Edison R.Discovery before Trial under the New Federal Rules.” Tennessee Law Review 15 (1939): 73757.
Sundquist, James L.Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States.” Political Science Quarterly 103 (1988–89): 61335.
Sunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa, and Sawicki, Andres. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006.
Taylor, Paul. “The Federalist Papers, the Commerce Clause, and Federal Tort Reform.” Suffolk Law Review 45 (2012): 35794.
Teles, Steven M. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Thayer, James B.The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law.” Harvard Law Review 7 (1893): 12956.
Thornburg, Elizabeth G.Cognitive Bias, the ‘Band of Experts,’ and the Anti-Litigation Narrative.” DePaul Law Review 65 (2016): 75592.
Tobias, Carl. “Reforming Common Sense Legal Reforms.” Connecticut Law Review 30 (1998): 53768.
Tonsing, Mike. “Symposium on Proposed Changes to FRCP: An Introduction.” Federal Lawyer (September 2004): 225.
Trubek, Louise. “Public Interest Law: Facing the Problem of Maturity.” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 33 (2011): 41734.
Ulribe, Alicia, Spriggs, James F. II, and Hansford, Thomas G.. “The Influence of Congressional Preferences on Legislative Overrides of Supreme Court Decisions.” Law and Society Review 48 (2014): 92146.
Unah, Isaac, Rosano, Kristen, and Milam, K. Dawn. “U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Public Mood.” Journal of Law and Politics 30 (2015): 293340.
Viscusi, W. Kip. Regulation through Litigation. Washington, DC: AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, 2002.
Vogel, David. “The ‘New’ Social Regulation in Historical and Comparative Perspective.” In Regulation in Perspective, edited by McCraw, Thomas K., 15585. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
Vogel, David. Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York: Beard Books, 1989.
Wallace, Clifford J.Judicial Reform and the Pound Conference of 1976.” Michigan Law Review 80 (1982): 59296.
Wasserman, Howard. “The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival.” Review of Litigation 31 (2012): 31352.
Weaver, Kent R. and Burt, A. Rockman. “Assessing the Effects of Institutions.” In Do Institutions Matter?, edited by Weaver, Kent R. and Rockman, Burt A., 141. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993.
Weinstein, Jack B. Reform of Court Rulemaking Procedures. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1977.
Weisbrod, Burton A. Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Whittington, Keith. “‘Interpose Your Friendly Hand’: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court.” American Political Science Review 99 (2005): 58396.
Whittington, Keith. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Wilson, James Q.The Bureaucracy Problem.” The Public Interest 6 (1967): 39.
Witcover, Jules. Party of the People: A History of the Democrats. New York: Random House, 2003.
Woolridge, Jeffrey M. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th edn. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2013.
Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to the Modern Class Action. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Yeazell, Stephen C.Judging Rules, Ruling Judges.” Law & Contemporary Problems 61 (1998): 22952.
Yeazell, Stephen C.Unspoken Truths and Maligned Interests: Political Parties and the Two Cultures of Civil Litigation.” University of California Los Angeles Law Review 60 (2013): 175291.
Zemans, Frances K.Fee Shifting and the Implementation of Public Policy.” Law and Contemporary Problems 47 (1984): 187210.
Zumbrun, Ronald A.Life, Liberty, and Property Rights.” In Bringing Justice to the People: The Story of the Freedom-Based Public Interest Law Movement, edited by Edwards, Lee, 4153. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, 2004.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed