Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:03:31.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional Recalibration and Judicial Delimitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Stuart Chinn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Throughout American history, a peculiar and recurrent disjunction has often arisen between the substance of transformative reforms and the decidedly less-radical governing arrangements that arise in the aftermath of reform. To account for this disjunction, this article puts forth a theory of postreform “recalibration.” Political processes of recalibration are the means by which vague, indeterminate principles of reform are given operational meaning and translated into new governing arrangements. This article illuminates recalibration processes by examining two case-studies: African American rights in the post-Reconstruction era of the 1870s and 1880s, and labor rights in the post–New Deal era of the late 1930s. Finally, the article also highlights the crucial role of the Supreme Court in recalibration processes and sets forth a theory of judicial behavior as driven by an institutional interest in stability.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Summer 2012 , pp. 535 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2012 

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.)

References

References

Abraham, Henry J. 1999. Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce. 1991. We the People: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce. 1998. We the People: Transformations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce. 1999. Revolution on a Human Scale. Yale Law Journal 108:2279–2350.Google Scholar
Alexander, Larry, and Schauer, Frederick. 1997. On Extrajudicial Constitutional Interpretation. Harvard Law Review 110:1359–87.Google Scholar
Atleson, James B. 1983. Values and Assumptions in American Labor Law. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M., and Levinson, Sanford. 2001. Understanding the Constitutional Revolution. Virginia Law Review 87:1045–1110.Google Scholar
Brandwein, Pamela. 2006. The Civil Rights Cases and the Lost Language of State Neglect. In The Supreme Court & American Political Development, ed. Kahn, Ronald and Kersch, Ken I., 275–325. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Brinkley, Alan. 1996. The End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Brinton, Crane. 1965. The Anatomy of Revolution, rev. and enlarged ed. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Chinn, Stuart. 2011. Race, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial‐Institutional Interest in Stability. Journal of Law (Law and Commentary) 1: 95–184.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. Decision‐making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy‐Maker. Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
De Santis, Vincent P. 1959. Republicans Face the Southern Question: The New Departure Years, 1877–1897. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dubofsky, Melvyn. 1994. The State and Labor in Modern America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Fiss, Owen M. 1976. Groups and the Equal Protection Clause. Philosophy and Public Affairs 5:107–77.Google Scholar
Foner, Eric. 2002. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Perennial Classics.Google Scholar
Gillette, William. 1979. Retreat from Reconstruction 1869–1879. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1993. The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development. 7:35–73.Google Scholar
Gross, James A. 1995. Broken Promise: The Subversion of U.S. Labor Relations Policy, 1947–1994. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Hirshson, Stanley P. 1962. Farewell to the Bloody Shirt. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Kaczorowski, Robert J. 2004. The Politics of Judicial Interpretation; the Federal Courts, Department of Justice and Civil Rights, 1866–1876. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, David M. 1999. Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kersch, Ken I. 2006. The New Deal Triumph as the End of History? The Judicial Negotiation of Labor Rights and Civil Rights. In The Supreme Court & American Political Development, ed. Kahn, Ronald and Kersch, Ken I., 169–226. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Klare, Karl E. 1978. Judicial Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937–1941. Minnesota Law Review 62:265–339.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael J. 2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leuchtenburg, William E. 1963. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lemann, Nicholas. 2006. Redemption: The Last Battle of the Civil War. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 1998. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lovell, George I. 2003. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, Michael W. 1994. The Forgotten Constitutional Moment. Constitutional Commentary 11:115–44.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen. 1992. Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ortiz, Daniel R. 1989. The Myth of Intent in Equal Protection. Stanford Law Review 41:1105–52.Google Scholar
Patashnik, Eric M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, James T. 1996. Grand Expectations, The United States, 1945–1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perman, Michael. 1984. The Road to Redemption: Southern Politics, 1869–1879. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Perman, Michael. 2001. Struggle for Mastery: Disfranchisement in the South, 1888–1908. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Polenberg, Richard. 1975. The Decline of the New Deal, 1937–1940. In The New Deal: The National Level, ed. Braeman, John, Bremmer, Robert H., and Brody, David, 246–66. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Rable, George C. 1984. But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Schulman, Bruce J. 1994. From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal Policy, Economic Development, and the Transformation of the South, 1938–1980. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. 2006. Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the de Facto ERA. California Law Review 94:1323–1420.Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. 1997. Why Equal Protection No Longer Protects: The Evolving Forms of Status‐Enforcing State Action. Stanford Law Review 49:1111–48.Google Scholar
Simpson, Brooks D. 1998. The Reconstruction Presidents. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers M. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Staszak, Sarah. 2010. Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment. Studies in American Political Development 24:168–89.Google Scholar
Stone, Katherine Van Wezel. 1981. The Post‐War Paradigm in American Labor Law. Yale Law Journal 90:1509–80.Google Scholar
Tomlins, Christopher L. 1985. The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement in America, 1880–1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tunnell, Ted. 1984. Crucible of Reconstruction: War, Radicalism, and Race in Louisiana, 1862–1877. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Valelly, Richard M. 2004. The Two Reconstructions: The Struggle for Black Enfranchisement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Xi. 1997. The Trial of Democracy: Black Suffrage and Northern Republicans, 1860–1910. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, Vesla M. 2007. Frontlash: Race and the Development of Punitive Crime Policy. Studies in American Political Development 21:230–65.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2005. “Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 99:583–96.Google Scholar
Wood, Gordon S. 1969. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Gordon S. 1992. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Zieger, Robert H. 1986. American Workers, American Unions, 1920–1985, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).Google Scholar
Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).Google Scholar
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).Google Scholar
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).Google Scholar
NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (1939).Google Scholar
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938).Google Scholar
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 (1937).Google Scholar
NLRB v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 303 U.S. 261 (1938).Google Scholar
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).Google Scholar
Slaughter‐House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).Google Scholar
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880).Google Scholar
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).Google Scholar
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Google Scholar
United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960).Google Scholar
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960).Google Scholar
United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960).Google Scholar
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976).Google Scholar
Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898).Google Scholar

Case Briefs

Allen, Charles. 1873. Brief of Charles Allen, Esq. The Slaughter‐House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).Google Scholar
Becker, Benjamin V., Max Swiren, Don M. Peebles, Ben W. Heineman, and Sidney H. Block. 1939. Brief for Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation. NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (1939).Google Scholar
Bryon, David S. 1975. Brief for Defendants. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, ed. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, 315–45. Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
Campbell, John A. 1975. Brief for defendants. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, ed. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, 381–409. Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
Durant, Thomas J. 1872. Brief of counsel of State of Louisiana. The Slaughter‐House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).Google Scholar
Field, David Dudley. 1975a. Brief for the defendants. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, ed. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, 411–17. Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
Field, David Dudley. 1975b. Oral Argument. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, ed. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, 419–54. Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
Marr, R. H. 1975. Brief for defendants. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). In Landmark Briefs and Arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States: Constitutional Law, ed. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, 347–79. Arlington, VA: University Publications of America.Google Scholar
Myers, Louis W., Howard L. Kern, and Homer I. Mitchell. 1938. Brief for Respondent. NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938).Google Scholar
National Labor Relations Board. 1938. Reply Brief for the National Labor Relations Board. NLRB v. Mackey Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938).Google Scholar
National Labor Relations Board. 1939. Brief for the National Labor Relations Board. NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 (1939).Google Scholar