Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:24:47.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Support Structures and Constitutional Change: Teles, Southworth, and the Conservative Legal Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Amanda Hollis‐Brusky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay reviews two recent works in political science on the American conservative legal movement: Steven M. Teles's The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law (2008) and Ann Southworth's Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition (2008). It examines these books in the context of a larger debate over the variables that best explain constitutional change in general and the recent “conservative counterrevolution” in Supreme Court jurisprudence in particular. It shows how these studies build on the scholarship of Charles Epp, who argued in The Rights Revolution (1998) that serious constitutional change requires not only the right cast of characters on the court, but also a strong “support structure” in the legal profession and civil society. Finally, it draws on the author's own research on the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy to illustrate some important avenues for further inquiry.

Type
Review Essay
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Spring 2011 , pp. 516 - 536
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2011 

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

Avery, Michael. 2009. We Dissent: Talking Back to the Rehnquist Court, Eight Cases That Subverted Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa. 2007. Answering the Call of the Court. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
Baird, Vanessa, and Jacobi, Tonja. 2009. Judicial Agenda Setting through Signaling and Strategic Litigant Responses. Washington University Journal of Law and Public Policy 29:215–38.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M. 2001. Bush v. Gore and the Boundary between Law and Politics. Yale Law Journal 110 (8): 1407–58.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M., and Levinson, Sanford. 2001. Understanding the Constitutional Revolution. Virginia Law Review 87 (6): 1045–1109.Google Scholar
Balkin, Jack M., and Levinson, Sanford. 2006. The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State. Fordham Law Review 75:489–539.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Belsky, Martin H. 2002. The Rehnquist Court: A Retrospective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blasi, V. 1983. The Burger Court: The Counter‐Revolution That Wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brief of the States of Maryland, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, etc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent in Alden v. Maine. 1998. U.S. Briefs, 436.Google Scholar
Brown, Steven P. 2002. Trumping Religion: The New Christian Right, the Free Speech Clause, and the Courts. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Steven, and Prakash, Saikrishna. 1994. The President's Power to Execute the Constitution. Yale Law Journal 104:541–666.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and May, D. 2000. The New Institutionalism and Supreme Court Decision‐Making: Toward a Political Regime Approach. Polity 32:233–52.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and Pickerill, J. Mitchell. 2004. Guess What Happened on the Way to Revolution? Precursors to the Supreme Court's Federalism Revolution. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 34 (3): 85–114.Google Scholar
Cushman, Barry. 1998. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert. 1957. Decision‐making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy Maker. Journal of Public Law 6:279–95.Google Scholar
Daughety, Andrew F., and Reinganum, Jennifer F. 2006. Speaking Up: A Model of Judicial Dissent and Discretionary Review. Supreme Court Economic Review 14 (1): 1–42.Google Scholar
Davis, Abraham L., and Graham, Barbara Luck. 1995. The Supreme Court, Race, and Civil Rights. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Devins, Neal, and Douglas, Davison M., eds. 2004. A Year at The Supreme Court. Raleigh, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Dunne, Peter Finley. 1901. Mr. Dooley's Opinions. New York: R. H. Russell.Google Scholar
Eastland, Terry. 2005. Meet Sam Alito, a Nominee Who Deserves an Up or Down Vote. The Weekly Standard. October 31.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Kobylka, Joseph F. 1992. The Supreme Court and Legal Change: Abortion and the Death Penalty. Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 1987. The Proper Scope of the Commerce Clause. Virginia Law Review 73:1387–1456.Google Scholar
Fallon, Richard H. Jr. 2002. The Conservative Paths of the Rehnquist Court's Federalism Decisions. University of Chicago Law Review 69 (2): 429–94.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1974. Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change. Law and Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2006. Regime Politics, Jurisprudential Regimes, and Unenumerated Rights. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 9 (1): 107–20.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark. 1993. The Non‐majoritarian Problem: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development 7:35–73.Google Scholar
Hollis‐Brusky, Amanda. 2008. The Reagan Administration and the Rehnquist Court's New Federalism: Understanding the Role of the Federalist Society. http://works.bepress.com/amanda_hollis/1 (February 7, 2011).Google Scholar
Hollis‐Brusky, Amanda. 2009. The Federalist Society and the Unitary Executive: An Epistemic Community at Work. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1456598 (February 7, 2011).Google Scholar
Irons, Peter H. 1982. The New Deal Lawyers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobi, Tonja. 2008. The Judicial Signaling Game: How Judges Shape Their Dockets. Supreme Court Economic Review 16 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Johnsen, Dawn E. 2003. Ronald Reagan and the Rehnquist Court on Congressional Power: Presidential Influences on Constitutional Change. Indiana Law Journal 78:363–412.Google Scholar
Keck, Thomas M. 2007. Party Politics or Judicial Independence? The Regime Politics Literature Hits the Law Schools. Law & Social Inquiry 32 (2): 511–44.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael J. 2004. From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, Larry. 2001. The Supreme Court 2000 Term: Foreword We the Court. Harvard Law Review 115 (4): 4–169.Google Scholar
Lawson, Gary, and Granger, Patricia. 1993. The Proper Scope of Federal Power. Duke Law Journal 43:267–336.Google Scholar
Leuchtenburg, William. 1995. The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lithwick, Dahlia. 2009. Unprecedented: Watching the Supreme Court Make Its Campaign Finance Jurisprudence Disappear. Slate, September 9.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Karen, and Epstein, Lee. 1983. The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation. Journal of Politics 45 (2): 479–89.Google Scholar
Olson, Theodore. 2005. John Roberts Deserves a Dignified Process. Wall Street Journal, September 12.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Jonathan. 2005. Originalism in American Law and Politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Paik, Anthony, Southworth, Ann, and Heinz, John P. 2007. Lawyers of the Right: Networks and Organization. Law and Social Inquiry 32:883–917.Google Scholar
Perry, H. W. Jr. 2004. Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Prakash, Saikrishna. 1993. Field Office Federalism. Virginia Law Review 79:1957–2038.Google Scholar
Provine, Doris Marie. 1999. Revolutionizing Rights: Epp's Comparative Perspective. Law & Social Inquiry 24 (4): 1125–41.Google Scholar
Scherer, Nancy, and Miller, Banks. 2009. The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary. Political Research Quarterly 62:366–78.Google Scholar
Schoenbrod, David. 1985. The Delegation Doctrine: Could the Court Give It Substance? Michigan Law Review 83:1223–90.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christopher H. 2001. Causes of the Recent Turn in Constitutional Interpretation. Duke Law Journal 51:307–60.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1992. The Giving Reasons Requirement. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 179–220.Google Scholar
Simon, James F. 1999. The Center Holds: The Power Struggle inside the Rehnquist Court. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Solberg, Rorie Spill, and Lindquist, Stefanie A. 2006. Activism, Ideology, and Federalism: Judicial Behavior in Constitutional Challenges before the Rehnquist Court, 1986–2000. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 3 (2): 237–61.Google Scholar
Southworth, Ann. 2008. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V. 1987. The NAACP's Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925–1950. Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V. 2005. A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Van Alstyne, William. 1994. The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms. Duke Law Journal 43:1236–55.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1959. Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP, and the Restrictive Covenants. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vose, Clement E. 1972. Constitutional Change: Amendment Politics and the Supreme Court. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2001. Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive. Duke Law Journal 51 (1): 477–520.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2005. “Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 99 (4): 583–96.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).Google Scholar
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999).Google Scholar
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001).Google Scholar
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. ___ (2010).Google Scholar
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).Google Scholar
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co, 488 U.S. 469 (1989).Google Scholar
District of Columbia. v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008).Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).Google Scholar
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).Google Scholar
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).Google Scholar
Pennsylvania v. Unioin Gas, 491 U.S. 1 (1989).Google Scholar
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).Google Scholar
Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 520 U.S. 471 (1997).Google Scholar
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).Google Scholar
Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).Google Scholar
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993).Google Scholar
Simmons‐Harris v. Zelman, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).Google Scholar
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).Google Scholar
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).Google Scholar
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937).Google Scholar
Whitman v. American Trucking, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).Google Scholar