Lawyers for conservative and libertarian causes are active in organizing and mobilizing interest groups within the conservative coalition, and networks of relationships among those lawyers help to maintain and shape the coalition. Using data gathered in interviews with seventy-two such lawyers, this article analyzes characteristics of the lawyers and the structure of their networks. The findings suggest that the networks are divided into segments or blocks that are identified with particular constituencies, but that a distinct set of actors with extensive relationships serves to bridge the constituencies. Measures of centrality and brokerage confirm the structural importance of these actors in the network, and a search of references in news media confirms their prominence or prestige. This “core” set of actors occupies the “structural hole” in the network that separates the business constituency from religious conservatives. Libertarians, located near the core of the network, also occupy an intermediate position. Regression analysis of ties within the network suggests that the Federalist Society plays an important role in bringing the lawyers together.

This article explores the binding forces that emerge in criminal cases. Using ethnographic data, we explore how defendants are bound to their initial defenses. In addition, we ask whether the binding effect works similarly or differently in three distinct procedures. Our research is rooted in the analytical concepts of “procedural history” and “discourse formation” as presented by Niklas Luhmann and Michel Foucault. Both theories describe past statements as “virulent” in present stages: participants have to take their own histories into account when engaging in current dealings; current statements must confront past statements, generating inconsistency and contradiction. Empirically, the three authors explore variations of binding in the light of eight microhistorical case narratives collected during fieldwork in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. These microhistories trace the binding effects of early defenses through pretrial and trial. Our observations lead us to conclude that the binding mechanism appears less determinative in practice than in the claims of theory. Alongside the several effects of binding, we identify a variety of protections, interruptions, and even unbinding effects.

Drawing on empirical data and property theory, this article explores the property structure of a “free school” and the work property performs there. At Summerhill, we can see a tension between two property registers. On the one hand, the founder and present members stress the importance of individual ownership; at the same time the school's property regime involves property-limitation rules, a dispersal of rights, collective forms of property, and cross-cutting, pluralized sites of institutional recognition. In exploring how this tension is manifested through property's work, the article focuses on property's contribution to a variegated social life at the school, analyzed in terms of personal, civic, and boundary relations. With belonging treated as the central component of property rather than exclusion or control, ways of understanding what constitutes property and how it works shift.

This article explores how welfare clients use and experience the fair hearing system, the administrative mechanism for challenging denials or reductions of aid in public welfare bureaucracies. Drawing on data from in-depth interviews with clients, it explores how old-style procedural protections like fair hearings are being used to challenge new-style welfare reforms. This research found that clients use fair hearings as a form of resistance and self-assertion, hoping that it will protect them from a bureaucracy perceived as arbitrary and capricious. Like many citizens, they are as concerned with being heard by their governmental institutions as they are with the outcome of their case and want to find within the machinery of government a forum where they can obtain recompense and respect. However, the legalistic and rule-bound nature of hearings makes it difficult for clients to present their claims, and meaningful participation is often denied them.

This article provides an ethnographic account of the power and practice of mandatory prosecution upon misdemeanor domestic battery suspects. Integrating law and society studies, domestic violence research, and poststructuralist theories of power, it finds that mandatory prosecution engages suspected batterers in multiple power operations that shape their agency in different ways. While many of these operations are familiar from past law and society research, mandatory prosecution alters their practice. In general, the different tactics that legal authorities deploy in their interactions with domestic battery suspects coalesce in an effort to have them plead guilty. The impact of these tactics on batterers, however, is far from clear. Mandatory prosecution increases the number of persons convicted of domestic violence. But abusers’ violence is repeatedly redefined and displaced, as they are processed through the court setting, thus casting doubt on the criminal court's power to affect their accountability. By detailing the court's various points of encounter with domestic battery suspects, this study offers a much-needed empirical framework for future evaluations of court interventions against domestic batterers.

Do the attempts of modern states to foster tax compliance reflect wider attributes of modernity? This article analyzes the history of the creation of a tax compliance culture in Israel of the 1950s and the various practices, techniques, and discourses that were deployed by the state to create model taxpaying citizens. It shows how the specific history of tax compliance can be understood as part of a wider phenomenon: the desire of modern states to create self-policing, normalized subjects. By interpreting the history of tax compliance critically, as part of the attempt of the state to control its citizens, the article suggests a new way of understanding the history of twentieth-century tax compliance generally and more specifically the history of judicial attempts to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance.

This article examines how techniques of illegality based in planning laws and policy are utilized to dominate the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem. Although the demolition of homes is the most spectacular spatial mechanism of illegality exercised by Israel in East Jerusalem, my focus in the first part of the article is on more mundane techniques of illegality, such as mapping, filing, and arbitrariness. The second part of the article introduces the notion of resistance and explores the illegal building carried out by East Jerusalemite Palestinians as an act of spatial protest. In examining tactics of everyday resistance, I suggest that the study of illegality in the East Jerusalem context allows a nuanced understanding of the relations between bureaucrats and subjects, thereby offering a deeper understanding of the nature of power itself.

Before the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, scholars consistently pointed to the presence of divided government as an underlying reason for conflict in the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominees. However, the importance of party unity and coalition-building appointments—each of which highlights the role of the president in the process—should not be underestimated in these confirmation battles. Moreover, an examination of the sixty twentieth-century nominations reveals that a presidency-focused political regimes model provides significant explanatory force for understanding when and what types of nominees are likely to face the most resistance in the Senate. It does so by incorporating Stephen Skowronek's analytical framework for understanding presidential authority to explain how and why different periods of political time affect presidential attempts to shape the U.S. Supreme Court through appointments. In turn, the model places recent conflict in the confirmation process in historical context.

This article shows that the legislative creation of new regulatory regimes can be approached as a process that carves out new territories of governance. Specifically, using the theoretical framework of social space, it explores the formation of a regulatory community arising out of the United Kingdom's Housing Act 1974, a community made up of the regulatees—not-for-profit housing associations—and the state regulator. The article demonstrates that the process of carving out a new territory of governance and the “spatial practices” of the occupiers of this new territory both enable the community to establish a large element of control of the regulatory regime. This analysis challenges an understanding of law as top-down, substituting a more nuanced, three-dimensional understanding of the production of norms and “common sense.” Regulatees are not just subject to regulation but shape the space through their expertise and social relations.

Despite the historical transformation of executions in the United States into cloistered, bureaucratic affairs, two past practices have persisted in modern executions: the opportunities for the condemned to request a special last meal and to make a speech to those assembled to witness the execution. The retention of these practices and the communication of their contents by the state and the media to the public reinforce a conception of those executed as autonomous actors, endowed with agency and individuality. Through these practices, the state and the media reflect and strengthen the oxymoronic construction of offenders in contemporary discourses as self-made monsters who are intrinsically different by choice. Presenting offenders in this way may ultimately maintain the emotional satisfaction needed to sustain the death penalty. Arguments are supported by published last meal requests and final statements in the state of Texas.

In this article, we analyze how pluralistic, competitive, and conflictual interest group amicus curiae participation is in the U.S. Supreme Court. Examining participating organizations and briefs during the 1995 term, we address three inquiries. First, we scrutinize the types of organized interests who participate as amici curiae. We find that the Court is open to a wide array of interests and that particular types of groups do not dominate amicus activity. Second, we analyze the frequency with which amici file briefs on opposing sides of dispute. We reveal few strict patterns of competition, suggesting that Supreme Court cases are salient to a diverse spectrum of interest groups, many of which are not usually thought of as being in competition with one another. Third, we investigate how often and which amici directly cite one another for purposes of invalidating each other's argumentation. While amici have a great deal of opportunity for this form of direct conflict, it is surprisingly rare. Nonetheless, when amici engage in this express form of discord, they play a clear role in shaping the flow of information at the Court.

A reexamination of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) documents reveals that the agency played a more direct role in the ghettoization of African Americans than previous scholarship has established. The FHA went far beyond merely approving of racial discrimination, and exploring the extent to which it did so is crucial to understanding the origins of urban racial inequality in America. Agency publications, many of them largely passed over by historians, called unequivocally for the containment of African Americans in the older residential neighborhoods where they were most likely to settle after migrating to the city. The agency then disguised its leadership in advancing a national segregationist agenda by deflecting blame onto the private market for policies that it had standardized and mandated. For nearly a decade after the Supreme Court invalidated one of its core racial programs, the FHA resisted providing greater opportunities for African Americans in the housing market.

Research on crime victims and their experiences with the criminal justice system suggests that victims’ rights (e.g., victim impact statements) and victims’ services (e.g., crime victims’ compensation, counseling) have not significantly improved victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system or their recovery from the crime. Thus, we appear to know little about how to satisfy and assist victims of crime. This study uses the symbolic interactionist perspective to examine victims’ experiences with law enforcement workers (e.g., detectives, counselors) with a focus on people who have lost a loved one to murder (“bereaved victims”). The data come from in-depth interviews with thirty-two bereaved victims, seven law enforcement workers, and three crime victims’ advocates in Union County (pseudonym). Bereaved victims define the victim role differently from law enforcement workers, creating two main points of conflict with workers: (1) a conflict over their deceased loved one's body, and (2) a conflict over the flow of information in the case. Bereaved victims’ frustrations over these conflicts created problems for their recovery. Bereaved victims’ efforts to see their deceased loved one's body, guide detectives’ investigation, and learn information about the murder and the investigation took a back seat to detectives’ interests in protecting the integrity of the investigation and building a strong case for the prosecution. Policy implications are discussed.

While affirmative action in universities is the subject of extensive empirical scholarship, little research has been conducted on the role of university officials in crafting, defending, and transforming race-based affirmative admissions. Through forty-five in-depth interviews with thirty-nine admissions officials and top administrators at three selective public universities between 1999 and 2004, this study uncovers how a near-consensus in favor of race-based affirmative action has emerged among these players. Whereas scholars, citizens, and activists debate the morality and legality of race-based affirmative action as an equal opportunity policy, admissions decision makers have come to view race-based affirmative action in addition as a central, diversity management technique. This article claims that interest group capture theory and judicial implementation theory are insufficient to explain the diversity consensus. I suggest that neoinstitutional organizational theory has great potential to describe and situate the thought processes leading these key actors to forge this policy transformation.

Where does international law (IL) draw its authority from a still weakly institutionalized international scene deprived of the warrants of a state? To address this classical debate, the article draws from a case study on the social and professional structure of the “international legal community” as it emerged during the 1920s as part of the rise of multilateralism and international organizations. It focuses on the “situation of the international lawyers” of the time, starting with the multiple and often antagonistic roles they play (as legal advisers, scholars, judges, diplomats, politicians, etc.) and the variety of interests and causes they defend (states, international organizations, professional interests, etc.) in international politics. It argues this heteronomy of international lawyers helps understand the autonomization of international law. Far from being opposed to one another it has often been assumed—realism and idealism, national loyalty and international loyalty, political logic and learned logic—actually gain when analyzed as various modes of affirming a single cause—that of an international rule of law. This attention given to the “situation of international lawyers” and to the way they manage their various allegiances also accounts for the particular vision of the “International” and of “Law and Politics” relationships that are encapsulated in this emerging international corpus juris.