This article explores the cooptation of human rights discourse by looking into how Israeli military judges in the Occupied Palestinian Territories use human rights as professional capital. Previous research into human rights arguments legitimizing the Israeli occupation remained confined to a unitary image of the state. Here, I dissect the separate professional project of military judges. Optimizing a self-congratulatory argument, judges portray themselves as human rights heroes of Palestinians. But while independent judicial activism would criticize human rights violations by the state, military judges use human rights as synonymous with legal professionalism, while avoiding criticism and sidestepping human rights’ challenge to state power.

Using a multimethod approach including analysis of judicial decisions, academic articles by military judges, and in-depth interviews, I argue that between 2000 and 2010, Israeli military judges were responding to a professional legitimacy crisis by what I call mimetic convergence. Relying on new institutionalism and postcolonial theory, mimetic convergence produces belonging and mobility for a professional subgroup that experiences alienation in the “colony” through convergence with the specific characteristics of the legal community of the “metropole.” Mimicking the state instead of criticizing it permits the two projects— promoting military judges professionally and legitimizing the state’s colonial occupation—to coalesce.

A hybrid regime court faces a legitimacy paradox: an activist court risks attracting backlash from the incumbent, whereas a deferential court may undermine public trust. The Hong Kong courts, at least in the twenty or so years following handover, provide an example of courts successfully navigating the legitimacy paradox despite the conflicting expectations from political actors. This article draws on the experiences of the Hong Kong courts to better understand the legitimacy paradox. It identifies three tools that Hong Kong courts have used to maneuver through the paradox, namely (1) the differential treatment of cases according to political stakes; (2) the use of comparative jurisprudence; and (3) the commitment to procedural justice. Studying these techniques may provide relevant insights to courts in similarly constrained political environments as to how judicial legitimacy can be earned. The article also reflects on the institutional future of Hong Kong courts in light of the increasing polarization of Hong Kong society as a result of the anti-extradition bill protests and signs of greater interference from Mainland China.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program provides qualifying undocumented immigrant youth with significant benefits. These benefits exist in a state of tension because they are temporary, making the status of DACA recipients precarious. In this article we draw on survey and interview data collected with DACA recipients in Colorado, along with community stakeholder interviews and observations to examine the liminally legal experience of recipients, both before and after Donald Trump’s announced intention to terminate the program. Focusing on their experiences of precarity across educational, economic, and emotional spheres, we document the negative and lasting consequences that the loss of DACA status would have for them. Given the rapidly shifting legal context of the DACA program, we argue that liminal legality varies in intensity based on political context and place. While undocumented young adults are acutely aware of the uncertainty of this moment, we also show how they are demonstrating resilience in the face of increasingly harmful immigration policies. The liminal legality of DACA status, which has worsened in the recent political context, underscores the urgent need for a permanent legislative solution.

Public support for the US Supreme Court has been trending downward for more than a decade. High-profile decisions and hotly contested nominations have drawn the Court into our polarized politics. Recently, some justices have spent considerable time and energy giving interviews, speeches, and the like, assuring the public that the Court is an apolitical, neutral arbiter of disputes, distinct from the “political” branches. In this context, we turn to an understudied potential source of judicial legitimacy: the off-bench public rhetoric of Supreme Court justices. In this article, we present evidence from three original survey experiments to argue that Supreme Court justices’ off-bench rhetoric can powerfully influence public perceptions of the Court’s institutional legitimacy. Furthermore, these studies show that performance approval is key to changes in legitimacy: respondents who disapprove of a Court decision were immune to the effects of justices’ rhetoric.

The standard paradigm of contracting assumes that parties will revise subsequent contracts if a court interpretation of a clause does not reflect their intent. This assumption, however, often does not match behavior—particularly, in boilerplate contracts. We examine the aftermath of an (in)famous 2016 case, Wilmington Savings Fund v. Cash America, to unpack possible reasons for this mismatch between theory and practice. We find evidence of a phenomenon in contracts that involves sophisticated parties who are nevertheless not represented by their own lawyers, lack full awareness of the fine print of the contractual terms, and, having devoted little attention to them, may be eclectic as to their meaning when they enter into these contracts. In these contracts, which we call contracts of inattention, a gap between lawyers’ understanding of a provision and the understanding of market participants is prone to emerge. The potential for such gaps has implications for how courts should interpret contracts of inattention and for how market participants will react to court rulings.

Trademark law protects distinctive signs of products against unauthorized uses. It is a legal tool to enhance market efficiency by conveying information about the origin of goods to consumers. Trademarks are also carriers of cultural information about the manufacturers, their products, and their message to the consumers. Thus, trademarks provide an unexpected reflection on society. This article explores the history of trademark law in Mandate Palestine, from the enactment of the first law to the end of the mandate (1922–48) in three cumulative avenues. First, a legal history analysis is provided, which seeks to understand why the British imposed trademark law at the time and manner they chose and how it was received by the local communities. Second, an empirical study of trademark data is given that reveals why the original trademark registry did not survive and how it was reconstructed for the current study. Trademark data offer an understudied and rich resource indicating economic changes and the reception of the law. Third, a semiotic analysis is provided that examines the trademarks themselves, focusing on local trademarks. Nationality is the common thread in these inquiries. The research reveals the differential reception of the British trademark law, with the Jewish population embracing it and the Arab-Palestinian population being much less receptive to it. The Jewish traders often used trademarks to convey national Zionist messages.

Critics have long maintained that the rights revolution and, by extension, the postwar turn to litigation as a regulatory tool, are the product of a cynical legislative choice. On this view, legislators choose rights and litigation over alternative regulatory approaches to shift costs from on-budget forms (for example, publicly funded social provisions, public enforcement actions by prosecutors or agencies) to off-budget forms (for example, rights-based statutory duties, enforced via private lawsuits). This “cost-shift” theory has never been subjected to sustained theoretical scrutiny or comprehensive empirical test. This article offers the first such analysis, examining a context where the cost-shift hypothesis is at its most plausible: disability discrimination laws, which shift costs away from social welfare programs by requiring that employers hire and “accommodate” workers with disabilities. Using a novel dataset of state-level disability discrimination laws enacted prior to the federal-level Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a range of archival and other materials drawn from state-level legislative campaigns, we find only limited support for the view that cost shifting offered at least part of the motivation for these laws. Our findings offer a fresh perspective on long-standing debates about American disability law and politics, including judicial interpretation of the ADA and its state-level analogues and the relationship of disability rights activism to other rights-based political movements.

The design of empirical research and theory-building projects in the sociolegal literature on criminalization is often premised on a presumed dichotomy between domestic and international planes of criminal lawmaking. However, in a global era in which domestic processes of criminalization are increasingly shaped by norms, institutions, and actors developed and operating outside national borders, criminalization research should develop a new theoretical frame for studying how international and domestic practices of criminal lawmaking interact with one another. This article builds from the theory of transnational legal orders and the recursivity of law to propose a transnational processual theoretical framework for the study of criminalization. This framework provides tools for investigating how criminal prohibitions are constituted through recursive interactions between actors operating in international, national, and local sites of legal practice. It draws on empirical studies to show how the processes of constructing, applying, and contesting definitions of international and transnational crimes are embedded in broader structures of power. The article demonstrates how a processual theory of transnational criminalization sheds light on important sociolegal questions about the driving forces and consequences of current efforts to harmonize the definitions of criminal activities across national jurisdictions.

The prominence of lawyers in the politics of modern state building has been recognized in both historical and theoretical scholarship. In Latin America, however, legal professionals were largely displaced from public governance by the mid-twentieth century. Using Chile as a case study, I argue that, beginning in the 1930s, the rise of the administrative state diminished the authority of elite lawyers who previously enjoyed a quasi-monopoly on statecraft. In addition to the emergence of professional competitors, lawyers lost political influence for two reasons: (1) a growing divergence between political and legal careers for law graduates and (2) internal and external constraints on the bar and the judiciary that limited the ability of legal actors to influence the political process. As a result, during a period when lawyers gained political sway in much of the world, their authority in public affairs dwindled in Chile.

A substantial body of scholarly research has examined decision-making in domestic high courts, but international judicial behavior remains relatively poorly understood. Building on research that uses judges’ career background as a proxy for their motivations at the European Court of Human Rights, we deploy a new measure of judicial career backgrounds and a new dataset of the Court’s free expression decisions. We combine quantitative analysis of judicial votes with qualitative analysis of judges’ signed dissenting opinions to advance existing understandings of the Court’s decision-making. We show that former diplomats are less likely to support contested free expression claims than their colleagues with different career backgrounds. In their published opinions, former diplomats are more likely to voice concerns about the objectionable nature of particular speech acts and to call for broad judicial deference to state restrictions on such speech. By contrast, judges with prior service in domestic government roles, as well as judges with career backgrounds outside of government, exhibit greater tolerance of objectionable speech, greater willingness to impose European-wide standards, and more frequent invocation of extra-European legal standards. Our findings contribute to broader debates about the influence of individual-level preferences on judicial behavior in international courts.

The “in-house counsel movement” of the past few decades, with its far-reaching implications for the legal profession, the legal service market, and corporate governance, has attracted a great deal of academic attention. Few scholars, however, have examined the global expansion of emerging market companies and their in-house legal capacity. To narrow the gap, this article investigates the in-house legal capacity of Chinese firms in the United States. In doing so, it focuses on two important yet underexplored questions: (1) whether and how institutions in China influence the capacity building; and (2) whether the Chinese investors’ ownership structure makes a difference in that regard. By analyzing a unique set of survey data and 122 interviews with lawyers, in-house counsel, and business executives, this article uncovers evidence of both multi-institutional influence and state-ownership effects. The findings contribute to theoretical and policy debates about the legal profession, the legal service market, and the ramifications of expanding Chinese multinational companies.

Which of the three legal doctrines of public use, just compensation, and due process is the most effective in constraining abuses of eminent domain power? This article addresses this question for the first time and presents the first-ever systematic investigation of the judicial review of eminent domain in China. Our empirical study reveals that Chinese courts focus on eminent domain procedures while rarely supporting claims based on public interest or just compensation. Procedural rules are determinate and therefore easier to enforce than substantial standards of public interest and just compensation. Chinese courts also choose to focus on eminent domain procedures to confine their own judicial review power for the purpose of self-preservation in an authoritarian state that empowers the courts to monitor and control local governments but does not want them to become too powerful. The study calls for a “due process revolution” in eminent domain law and introduces the “judicial politics of legal doctrine” approach to the study of Chinese law, an approach that takes both political institutions and legal doctrines seriously.

Over a century after the Progressives’ devised “living constitutionalism,” its latter day adherents have fought conservatives’ originalism to an intellectual standstill and a political rout. Bookended by discussions of three books by legal liberals (Jack Balkin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss) and a book and article by progressive constitutional scholars (Mark Tushnet, David Pozen and Adam Samaha), this essay argues that legal liberalism today is intellectually exhausted. In developing a “critical constitutionalism,” those to their left have better identified constitutional law and theory’s pathologies and potential. The overarching claim is that professional and ideological factors have led legal liberals to misapprehend the uses and limitations of constitutional theory. The essay concludes by suggesting legal liberals move past debates about originalism and begin to think anew about what (legal) liberalism has to offer American constitutionalism.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court established that incarcerated people have a constitutional right to health care, ratifying lower court decisions. Corresponding professionalization and standardization initiatives included the advent of third-party certifications of individual correctional health care (CHC) practitioners. Drawing on historical evidence about CHC reforms and contemporary data on certifications, incarcerated people’s lawsuits, and incarcerated people’s mortality rates, this study assesses relationships between certifications and key outcomes of incarceration. We find that corrections actors tend to adopt certifications when directly threatened by elevated rates of litigation in their states. This finding suggests that corrections actors are legally reactive, responding to filed lawsuits’ salient threat, rather than legally proactive, attempting to manage risk through anticipatory certification adoption. While early standardization and professionalization interventions reflected the legally proactive logic, our results indicate that contemporary corrections actors tend to “wait and see” about legal liability. Barriers to settlements or court rulings favoring incarcerated people—particularly the Prison Litigation Reform Act—help explain this tendency. Lawsuits’ observed influence on standardization and professionalization offer some support for litigation’s capacity to impel changes; litigation’s failure to predict mortality, however, gives pause regarding this capacity’s extent.

Preemption is one of the most important legal doctrines for today’s progressives to understand because of its power to constrain progressive policymaking and social movement lawyering at the state and local level. By examining the detailed history of a decades-long campaign by the labor and environmental movements to improve working conditions in an industry at the heart of the global supply chain, Scott L. Cummings’s Blue and Green: The Drive for Justice at America’s Port (2018) provides a case study about the doctrine and impacts of preemption. The study also inspires lawyers and activists alike to reexamine core questions of factual relevance, representation and voice, and precedent.

What happens to gains in human rights protections if states learn how to use international human rights courts to evade future scrutiny? This article centers on Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, a landmark 2012 migration case at the European Court of Human Rights. Rights advocates characterized the case as a legal victory for migrants. Subsequent shifts in Italian bordering and policing on the high seas demonstrate unintended consequences of this litigation. While Italy implemented the judgment, compliance went hand in hand with state efforts to undermine rights protections in practice. Italy carved out new areas of discretion among maritime police, human rights advocates, and migrants on the high seas. Ultimately, assessing the impact of case law requires looking not only at judgments and at execution. It requires attention to subsequent policy environments and policing efforts that may violate the spirit, if not the letter, of human rights obligations.

The temporality of resistance is one of interregna. Resistance wins, loses, and draws, while old and new power relations continuously rise and fall, being entrenched and resurrected as they are contested and usurped. Just as power radiates from all over, from the state, law, other social institutions, and relationships, resistance is diffused across yet vested in individuals and groups, moving in solidarity through interconnected pasts, presents, and futures. “Interregna” thus resonates with contemporary theories about the multisited nature of power, but expands the scope of attention to temporal heterogeneity. It sees resistance as a great host crossing lands, seas, and times. Protests in this political moment are connected by their fury and determination to overcome injustice, as well as by histories and memories to struggles that came before. “Interregna” also keeps us alert to unknown wrongs that lie ahead, and the need to fight ceaselessly for progressive justice. Understanding resistance as interregna, we sharpen our appreciation for law and power, and the manner by which we study legal mobilization, legal consciousness, and social change.

How do legal strategies at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) vary among activists in highly asymmetrical social positions? Social scientists have demonstrated that legal mobilization raises the pressure on states to provide broader minority accommodation. While this may be true, such outcome-oriented studies overlook the fact that judicial mobilization is itself deeply imbued with inequalities and divergent interests among diverse activists. We lack comparative studies to examine how such differences play out in litigation. Drawing on a qualitative in-depth study among Sikh, Muslim, Catholic, Evangelical, and secular advocacy groups involved in religious freedom disputes at the ECtHR, this article argues that claims making often is a balancing act between legal power relations and extra-legal commitments, which leads to variation in activists’ leverage to challenge legal marginalization. First, hostile legal environments discourage more easily activists with weaker transnational connections who are in vulnerable domestic positions. Second, while the most marginalized readily seek to fit identity narratives into dominant legal frames of religion, more powerful actors can target the core of legal principles and power distribution within the legal field as such. Even when unsuccessful in judicial outcomes, they might affect broader political and legal debates.

Nominations to the US Supreme Court have become increasingly important and contentious in America politics in recent decades. Reasons include the growing significance of constitutional law to the prospects of political power, accompanied by historical developments in the relative power of the competing party coalitions that have placed even more focus on the composition of the Court. Meanwhile, partisan conflict and stalemate have grown in the party systems and among We the People. In The Long Reach of the Sixties, Laura Kalman explores how the nomination struggles of Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon set the stage for the contemporary conflict besetting nominations and American politics more generally. Building on Kalman’s book, this review essay discusses the political and jurisprudential causes and implications of this conflict, with an eye toward what might lie ahead.