THE SUPREME COURT AS AN ARENA FOR ACTIVISM: FEMINIST CAUSE LAWYERING’S INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING*

Holly J. McCammon, M. Moon, Brittany N. Hearne, M. Robinson
{"title":"THE SUPREME COURT AS AN ARENA FOR ACTIVISM: FEMINIST CAUSE LAWYERING’S INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING*","authors":"Holly J. McCammon, M. Moon, Brittany N. Hearne, M. Robinson","doi":"10.17813/1086-671x-25-2-221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beginning in the 1960s, U.S. feminist movement litigators organized public-interest legal organizations to promote women’s rights through legal mobilization in the courts. We investigate all U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving gender equality from 1965 to 2016 to discern the impact of involvement of these feminist movement litigation groups as legal counsel. Our findings show that organized feminist cause lawyers increase the likelihood of decisions expanding women’s legal rights and/or promoting gender equality. Our results also indicate that broader legal and political opportunities combine with legal-activist efforts to produce these judicial outcomes. However, when the Supreme Court is highly conservative regarding abortion rights, feminist cause lawyers face difficulty winning cases. Our research suggests the importance for movement scholars of considering activist litigation, and our findings indicate that a theory of the joint effects of activist legal mobilization and broader legal/political opportunities can explain the judicial outcomes movement actors seek.","PeriodicalId":151940,"journal":{"name":"Mobilization: An International Quarterly","volume":"190 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mobilization: An International Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671x-25-2-221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Beginning in the 1960s, U.S. feminist movement litigators organized public-interest legal organizations to promote women’s rights through legal mobilization in the courts. We investigate all U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving gender equality from 1965 to 2016 to discern the impact of involvement of these feminist movement litigation groups as legal counsel. Our findings show that organized feminist cause lawyers increase the likelihood of decisions expanding women’s legal rights and/or promoting gender equality. Our results also indicate that broader legal and political opportunities combine with legal-activist efforts to produce these judicial outcomes. However, when the Supreme Court is highly conservative regarding abortion rights, feminist cause lawyers face difficulty winning cases. Our research suggests the importance for movement scholars of considering activist litigation, and our findings indicate that a theory of the joint effects of activist legal mobilization and broader legal/political opportunities can explain the judicial outcomes movement actors seek.
最高法院作为行动主义的舞台:女权主义导致律师对司法决策的影响*
从20世纪60年代开始,美国女权运动诉讼律师组织公益法律组织,通过法院的法律动员来促进妇女的权利。我们调查了1965年至2016年期间所有涉及性别平等的美国最高法院判决,以辨别这些女权运动诉讼团体作为法律顾问参与的影响。我们的研究结果表明,有组织的女权主义事业律师增加了扩大妇女法律权利和/或促进性别平等的决定的可能性。我们的研究结果还表明,更广泛的法律和政治机会与法律活动家的努力相结合,产生了这些司法结果。但是,在大法院对堕胎权持高度保守态度的情况下,女权主义事业律师很难胜诉。我们的研究表明了运动学者考虑活动家诉讼的重要性,我们的研究结果表明,活动家法律动员和更广泛的法律/政治机会共同作用的理论可以解释运动行动者寻求的司法结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信