research papers on judicial process

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Judicial Process in America

• Robert A. Carp - University of Houston, USA
• Kenneth L. Manning - University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA
• Lisa M. Holmes - University of Vermont, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

• The Annotated Constitution in the book’s appendix features the authors’ explanatory comments for each of the document’s articles and sections, offering context and references to landmark cases.
• Chapter summaries help focus students’ study and review.
• Further Thought and Discussion Questions promote critical thinking and reflection on key chapter points.
• Annotated Suggested Resources list books, journal articles, and websites, offering students guidance for further research.
• U.S. political scene updates driven by the recent change in the U.S. presidency; including the shift in presidential strategy for filling court appointments, changes in the Supreme Court composition, the role of courts in terrorism, and more.
•   Advancements in U.S. state level changes with coverage of the movement of tort reform, examples of state legislative exertion of force on judge selection, and more. 
•   Coverage of modern events ; including, the legality of the Affordable Care Act and DREAMers, how to address the issues of immigration and deportation, status of abortion rights, transgender person issues, changes in issues with same-sex marriage, studies behind the decision patterns of the three women on the supreme court, and the impact Trump has had on the partisan composition of the courts. 
•   Inclusion of more data on the voting patterns of the U.S. trial judges appointed by Obama, and for the first time, empirical data on the voting behavior of Trump’s trial court jurists. 
•   New websites recommended at the end of each chapter for students to conduct further research the material. 
•   COVID-19’s impact on the administration of federal courts. 
• Reduced content by 10%
• New discussion of  the impact of Covid-19 on the administration of the federal courts and state judicial administration
• Updated content on the  expanding role of state supreme courts in important areas of policymaking such as same-sex marriage and legislative apportionment.
• New  discussion on how judicial restraint squelched attempts by former President Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
• Substantial changes to Chapter 6 including attention to Trump’s nominees and the consequences of filibuster reform, a broader focus on “The Consequences of Lifetime Tenure” is brought to bear on the discussion of impeachment and recall of judges, and new content concerning when and how judges vacate their seats.
• A new preliminary analysis of President Biden’s judicial nominations and his judicial appointment strategy.
• Statistics have been updated throughout, and the material on the death penalty has been pulled into a separate section, expanded, and updated to reflect the resumption of federal executions late in the Trump presidency.
• The trial of former Milwaukee police office Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd is used to illustrate the various stages of a criminal trial. 

Preview this book

Sample materials & chapters.

CH01 - Foundations of Law in the United States

CH02 - The Federal Judicial System

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

27 The Judicial Process and Public Policy

Kevin T. McGuire is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina.

• Published: 02 September 2009
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article considers several issues that are related to the judicial process. It aims to shed some light on the policy capacities that the courts possess, as well as the impact of their decisions. The chapter focuses on the conditions that must be met in order for the courts to make effective policy. It describes how several of the basic features of the judicial process actually undermine the realization of those conditions. The discussion draws on several different strands of research that underscore different problems that are common to judges serving as policy-makers.

Courts are curious institutions. Unlike elected bodies that regard governing as their explicit responsibility, members of the judiciary are often less certain about their function within the polity. To be sure, legislative and executive officials frequently disagree about the types of policies that should be enacted. Questions such as “To what degree should the state regulate economic and social affairs?” and “What should be the government's priorities in foreign affairs?” are some of the basic issues with which representatives must come to terms. Regardless of the role they believe that government should play, however, elected representatives scarcely doubt that it is their obligation to establish the rules that order relations in society.

Judges, by contrast, must ask themselves not only what policies are appropriate but also whether they should be making them in the first place. For some, courts are major decision-makers that function as principals on a par with legislators and executives in developing, monitoring, and adapting public policies. Others take quite the opposite view, envisioning courts as more modest institutions whose functions involve arbitrating public and private disputes by doing little more than faithfully interpreting existing law. And it is not merely judges who have this ambivalence. These divisions about the role of courts exist among other policy-makers as well as businesses, organizations, and the mass public.

Such disagreements about whether judges should lead or follow in the process of governing presuppose that courts actually have the capacity to effect policy change—the ability to bring about meaningful reform—and that the work that courts do has major consequences for the various constituencies that are touched by the decisions of judges. It is not at all clear, though, that courts possess the policy-making capacity necessary to bring about such change. Nor is it obvious that the policies of courts bring about the reforms that are intended.

Just how well suited are courts to making policy? Are judges capable of actually producing changes within society? In this chapter, I consider a number of issues related to the judicial process with an eye towards illuminating the policy capacities that courts possess and the impact of their decisions. Specifically, I discuss the conditions that must be met in order for courts to make effective policy and then describe how several of the basic features of the judicial process undermine realizing those conditions. To illustrate, I will draw on several different strands of research that underscore various problems that are endemic to judges serving as policy-makers. Since the bulk of scholarly research on judicial policy-making examines the United States, most of my illustrations involve American courts. Still, political scientists are increasingly interested in courts outside the USA, and I rely upon this growing body of research as well. My purpose is not to suggest that courts in the USA or elsewhere are ineffective policy-makers. Rather, I try to temper the expectations about what courts can do by describing how judges, like any set of governmental actors, face certain institutional constraints that limit their policy ambitions.

1 Conditions for Effective Policy-making

For quite some time, lawyers, judges, and scholars took it on faith that the policies handed down by courts were just as significant as the enactments of legislatures, indeed in some cases even more so. After all, beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court of the United States entered the fray over some of the most visible issues within society, crafting major legal reforms in such policy areas as the freedoms of speech, press, and religion, the rights of the criminally accused, and racial discrimination. As a result, the American courts now address such issues as abortion, the right to die, the death penalty, gender discrimination, affirmative action, regulation of the Internet, legislative apportionment, and property rights, as well as questions of legislative, executive, and state power. The Court's decisions in these areas are regarded as particularly consequential; since many involve interpretation of the US Constitution, there is effectively no recourse—save the unlikely route of amending the Constitution—for elected officials who might seek to modify or undo judicial policies that they find disagreeable.

Over the past fifteen years, however, researchers have begun to look closely at the actual consequences of judicial policy-making and have found the results to be far more variable than had been assumed. In light of these findings, scholars have reassessed the subject of judicial capacity, thinking with greater care about the conditions that must be met in order for the decisions of judges to produce significant policy change. That courts announce significant policies does not necessarily mean that those policies are followed or have pronounced effects for society.

One of the most important assessments of the impact of courts can be found in Gerald Rosenberg's (1991) analysis of several of the Supreme Court's most prominent policy domains. His work delineates both the institutional constraints that courts face and the several “conditions for efficacy,” that is, the circumstances that must obtain if courts are to be truly effective policy-makers (1991, 10–36). In particular, he argues that the legal system requires courts to operate within the traditions and language of the law; thus, judges who are inclined to create major policy innovations must still be able to trace those policies to a widely shared understanding of the Constitution and its laws. Moreover, whatever the policy ambitions of judges, they are inevitably constrained by the courts' lack of an enforcement power and consequently their reliance upon popular support for their decisions.

In light of these considerations, courts must lay the legal groundwork for change by institutionalizing a series of precedents upon which to build their policies. Once those policies are established, there must be a reasonable amount of acceptance by both the public and elected officials. To the extent that there is resistance to judicial policy, government officials must be willing to offer rewards or punishments to bring about implementation.

In short, because courts lack the ability to put their rulings into effect, they must depend upon the goodwill of others to act on their behalf. The greater care courts take in establishing the legitimacy of their rulings, the more likely they are to be supported by those who can create the conditions necessary for implementors to carry out the courts' will.

2 Characteristics of Courts

Are courts well situated to meet these conditions? Judges have both formal and informal characteristics that facilitate their policy-making; they possess the authoritative power to resolve legal disputes, and in doing so they are generally accepted as legitimate, enjoying the esteem of both the public and other government officials. At the same time, there are a number of distinctive characteristics of the judicial process that complicate the ability of courts to bring about effective policy change.

2.1 Judicial Selection

Both across and within countries, judges vary a good deal in the mechanisms by which they are chosen, and different methods of selection create various incentives for judges, which do not necessarily enhance independent policy-making. In England, for example, lower court judges are selected by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with local advisory boards, while appellate judges are chosen (at least nominally) by the prime minister, who receives advice from the Lord Chancellor and a committee for judicial appointments (Kritzer 1996 ). For quite some time, selection was largely a function of political patronage, thus making it attractive for judges to bring political considerations to bear in their decisions (Drewry 1993 ). In its modern manifestation, however, it is a system that tends to place greater emphasis on the qualifications of judges (Griffith 1991 ; Kritzer 1996 ).

In the United States, by contrast, the vast majority of the judiciary is elected. Most American judges are creatures of state government, and most states opt for some form of election for their judicial officials. As a result, there is little guarantee that the people most competent to serve as judges will be selected. Indeed, voters know precious little about candidates for judicial office (Klein and Baum 2001 ). Much has been made of this apparent weakness, and since judging requires fidelity to the law, not politics, reformers often argue that members of the bench should be selected by some form of independent commission that can evaluate the objective qualifications of potential jurists. This, it turns out, is not as serious a limitation as critics charge, since the same types of individuals who are disposed to be judges have fairly consistent professional backgrounds; thus, the same sorts of people end up being chosen, regardless of the method of selection (Glick and Emmert 1987 ). In terms of their qualifications, those who are elected resemble very closely those who are appointed.

The same cannot be said, however, about their voting behavior. For those judges who are elected, the very incentives that guide the actions of popular policy-makers often end up motivating their decisions as well. Thus, for example, judges who are about to stand for re-election engage in strategic behavior, frequently voting in ways that will not alienate the electorate (all 1992 ). Judges are (theoretically, at least) obligated to make decisions in light of what the rule of law dictates, and in practice, of course, they may not be able to realize that goal. But, when elected judges are guided by a desire to satisfy constituents, they forgo the pursuit of it.

Under such conditions, it will be difficult for judges to take the lead as policy-makers. Inasmuch as they are tethered to public opinion, elected judges will be inhibited from innovating and looking for ways to produce legal change.

Appointed judges are no less prone to be attentive to the public. Political scientists have long recognized that even life-tenured judges may be constrained by the law-making majority. They too evince a reluctance to challenge sitting elected officials (Dahl 1957 ; Murphy 1964 ), and a good deal of scholarship shows that, despite life tenure and no supervising authority, the members of the Supreme Court are often mindful of the preferences of their coordinate branches and the public as well (see, e.g., McGuire and Stimson 2004 ; Mishler and Sheehan 1996 ; Segal 1988 ).

For appointed judges whose goals may be to craft policies that have genuine efficacy, the lack of enforcement power requires a reliance upon an acceptance of their decisions. Those who stray too far from the tolerance limits of the political system do so at the risk of their legitimacy. Thus, the institutions that govern how judicial pronouncements are translated into public policies provide some obvious limits on the judiciary. If judges seek to chart new ground with their legal policies, they must consider the extent to which their policies will be accepted.

2.2 The Process of Decision-making

Perhaps more significant for an understanding of judicial policy-making is an appreciation of the mechanics of the judicial process. At first glance, one might be inclined to overlook the actual procedures by which judges render their decisions and focus on the substance of those decisions. Judging strictly by the broad array of topics to which courts address themselves—medical malpractice, employment discrimination, rights of the handicapped, labor disputes, voting rights, privacy, commercial regulation, punitive damages, just to name a few—courts are surely taking a leading role in the development of social and economic policies.

Given that courts touch virtually all aspects of public and private life, it is easy to imagine that their policy purview is on a par with the elected branches. Nevertheless, courts face a number of important limitations that are endemic to the judicial process. The very nature of adjudication—the set of institutions that govern how courts make decisions—serves as a serious limitation on the extent to which courts can generate meaningful legal change. These constraints are not immediately obvious, but they consistently conspire to moderate the impact of judicial outcomes. 1

One characteristic of the judicial process that is distinctive from the work done by legislative and executive officials is that adjudication tends to focus on a limited range of policy alternatives. In any given case, two litigants are pitted against one another, each asking for some specific remedy. All else being equal, judges regard it as their responsibility to decide cases as narrowly as possible and develop limited, not expansive rulings.

As Justice Louis Brandeis famously explained in Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), courts should not actively seek to challenge the decisions of their coordinate branches but rather must wait until such a question has been presented by the litigants. Moreover, when litigants do call into question the constitutionality of a legislative act, judges must first look for some alternative grounds for resolving the case and, barring that, attempt to construe the statute in such a way as to avoid having to strike it down. Of course, judges can and do violate these guidelines. Even so, judges take these admonitions seriously and generally do not actively seek to strike down laws unless asked to do so (Howard and Segal 2004 ).

As a result of this orientation, judges often look for the most limited ways of solving legal problems and consider only such solutions as are channeled to them through the litigants. By contrast, legislators are not bound by such norms and are free to consider what policies they regard as most sensible, even if those policies constitute major departures from the status quo.

Perhaps not surprisingly, courts tend to make policies only on a step-by-step basis. By limiting themselves to the specific contours of a case, judges select solutions that are short-term in nature. Rulings are established to fit individual cases, and whatever uncertainty remains must be clarified by later litigation. To take one example, the warnings that police are obligated to convey to criminal suspects were articulated quite clearly in Miranda vs. Arizona (1966). Among other things, those warnings specify that individuals do not have to respond to police questioning once they are taken into custody.

Despite the clarity of that ruling, however, the Supreme Court left undefined what constituted “questioning” and “custody” for the purposes of the Miranda decision. Because the Miranda Court limited itself purely to the warnings required by the Fifth Amendment, not addressing the definition of their terms, those issues had to be resolved in subsequent cases. Of course, the definition of such terms is a common legislative practice; it reduces ambiguity and allows for a common understanding of the meaning of policy enactments. Surely, judges can foresee the need for clarifying the meaning of a ruling, but the judicial process dictates that those questions be addressed on an individual basis in later cases.

The reason courts tend not to act preemptively is that policy-making through adjudication requires that judges be presented with a genuine legal controversy that plainly presents the issues that judges wish to address. Stated differently, courts do not speak until spoken to. Thus, judges who might have particular policy goals must await an appropriate case in which to craft their policies. A judge who has designs in the area of, say, commercial law or environmental protection, will be unable to advance his or her goals if the cases that judge must decide involve primarily child custody or criminal prosecutions.

Appellate courts can offer greater opportunities in this regard, especially those that have the ability to set their own agenda. Even among judges who can pick and choose their cases, however, some members may be disposed to allow lower courts the chance to find sensible solutions before intervening (Perry 1991 ). Elected officials, by contrast, need nothing beyond their own initiative to stimulate policy change. They may promote reform whenever they see fit.

Even when a court is presented with a specific case, there is no guarantee that the court will be able to act. Whether a court is capable of providing genuinely meaningful relief in a case—the requirement that a case be “justiciable”—is a serious limit on the actions of courts. A number of different legal threads weave together to make a case justiciable. Concepts such as adverseness, mootness, and standing may sound esoteric to the outsider, but they are critical constraints on what courts can do.

To take one example, in the spring of 2004 many Americans anxiously awaited the Supreme Court's decision as to whether the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance when recited by public schoolchildren constituted a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against government establishing religion. When the Court's decision was announced, observers learned that the Court did not address this issue at all. Rather, the justices declined to address the merits of this salient legal question. They concluded that, since the father of the girl involved in the legal challenge did not have legal custody of his daughter—her parents had been divorced, and her mother had received custody—the father did not have the legal standing to challenge the Pledge on her behalf. 2 Thus, even when asked, courts cannot be counted upon to answer.

To many, this limitation seems perverse; shouldn't the Court simply go ahead and issue a ruling on the Pledge, especially after having gone to the trouble of having the case argued? To others, it is an important feature of the adjudicatory process that serves to ensure that policy-making is primarily in the hands of elected officials. However it is conceived, a requirement that a court refrain from making a decision until a case is properly presented surely inhibits the capacity of courts to promote policy innovations.

Quite apart from the passive nature of courts, adjudication tends to generate only limited amounts of information upon which to base decisions. When Congress seeks to develop new policies in telecommunications or agriculture or foreign policy, it gathers information, conducts committee hearings, and considers testimony for various affected interests. In fact, this informing function is considered to be an implicit part of the legislative power. Judges, though, resolve cases with an eye towards crafting legal solutions that are consistent with their notions of what the law permits or requires. Courts are not supposed to assess the wisdom of policy, only its validity.

Nevertheless, judges are inevitably drawn into considering how their interpretations of the law will affect different segments of society, whether their resolution of a dispute will make sense as a matter of public policy for those who are consumers of their decisions. Although cases are ostensibly disputes between two individual litigants, those litigants, as often as not, are drawn from larger populations that stand to win or lose by a case's outcome. Thus, a decision in a case in which a single corporation is a party may affect an entire industry. A case in which a state is a party may be one which many other states watch with interest, since they are apt to feel the effects of the decision. And so on.

Unlike legislators, however, courts have little capacity to summon additional information to inform their decisions. They must rely instead upon the abstract arguments of law presented by the parties to a case. In some courts, affected interests have the opportunity to inform judges through their participation as amici curiae (that is, as “friends of the court”). Again, however, judges have little control over the source or quality of this information. In this respect, they are at a distinct disadvantage relative to elected officials who, as a routine matter, seek to gather as much information and analysis as they deem useful on the impact of various policy alternatives.

Finally, courts differ from other decision-makers in that the judicial process does not provide for regular monitoring and oversight of the policies crafted by judges. Naturally, judges can adjust policies through subsequent litigation, but there is no formal mechanism by which judges can examine the ongoing impact of their policies. That adjudication does not provide such mechanisms means that courts will not learn in a timely way—if indeed they learn at all—that the policies they have put into place may be failing to realize their objectives.

These limitations notwithstanding, judges on both trial and appellate courts are generally quite competent in discharging their responsibilities, and many of their policies clearly produce important, substantive change for various segments of society. A great deal of scholarly work, in fact, demonstrates that courts can be the source of significant innovations in the policy priorities of government (see, e.g., Glick 1991 ; Rowland and Carp 1996 ).

For their part, legislative and executive officials are by no means immune from suffering the fate of ineffective or ill-considered policy. Any governmental institution is limited by various handicaps that hamper what they may achieve. As a comparative matter, there are a number of important factors that differentiate legal from political policy-makers, and these factors serve to place somewhat greater limits on the members of the judiciary than they do officials who are popularly chosen.

3 Actors in the Judicial Process

Judges are the central players in the business of judicial policy-making. They weigh alternatives and craft authoritative rules that affected constituencies are obliged to respect. Because the development of those rules is so contingent upon decisions made by others (decisions about when to go to court, what arguments to present, and the like) any attempt to understand the links between the judicial process and judicial policy-making requires that one consider with special care the role of other actors in the legal system.

Foremost among those are the litigants themselves. Courts, as I have noted, are passive institutions that require genuine legal controversies within which to develop policies. For that reason, the decision to go to court is crucial for creating the opportunities necessary for judges to advance their legal policy goals.

On the one hand, the sheer size of court caseloads at both the federal and state levels suggest that judges are not lacking for legal vehicles in which to develop policy. On the other hand, the evidence also suggests that most potential conflicts tend not to make it before judges. Instead, cases are either settled or never initiated in the first place. In criminal cases, prosecutors and defense attorneys frequently opt to plea bargain (Heumann 1978 ; Mather 1979 ), and consequently many of the cases that might otherwise be brought before a judge are resolved by a defendant agreeing to accept a guilty plea in exchange for some form of consideration from the prosecutor.

In the case of civil disputes, much has been made of the tendency for individuals to avail themselves of courts at the slightest provocation. Objective assessments of the flow of litigation, though, suggest that the notion of a litigation crisis is vastly oversold (Galanter 1983 ; Miller and Sarat 1980–81 ). The media are largely culpable for stimulating such perceptions; by placing unwarranted reliance upon sensational and unrepresentative cases, the media present a largely perverted picture of the legal system and the courts' policy role in resolving private disputes (Haltom and McCann 2004 ).

Such perceptions have implications for the policy-making capacity of courts. One of the conditions for effective legal change is that courts enjoy support and acceptance from the public and other governmental officials. So, to the extent that the legal system is perceived as irrational or inefficient, this will impede the implementation of judicial rulings (Canon and Johnson 1999 , 33–43; Edwards 1980 ).

Such distortions aside, many citizens do regard litigation as a kind of right, and as a result they often turn to the courts as a forum for solving their interpersonal conflicts, even as judges are reluctant to consider them (Merry 1990 ). For the most part, though, the vast majority of individuals who suffer some form of wrong opt not to go to court. Many simply capitulate and accept their losses; far fewer actually complain. Among those who do complain, only a limited number take steps to consult a lawyer, and increasingly there are non-lawyers who work as representatives in some alternative form of dispute resolution (Kritzer 1998 ). For those who do seek legal counsel, relief is often secured without proceeding to actual litigation. When lawyers (or their functional equivalents) are unable to secure a settlement, it is only then that individuals actually turn to the courts (Miller and Sarat 1980–81 ). Thus, however large the number of individuals who go to court may be, it is inevitably only a small fraction of the number that could turn to the judicial system.

Knowing which litigants ultimately enter the process of litigation is important, because it is their substantive claims which, taken together, constitute the range of possible policies to which courts can address themselves. As passive policy-makers, judges can speak only to those concerns that are brought to the courthouse door.

If a representative sample of potential legal claims makes its way onto the courts' dockets, then judges will have as broad a set of issues as possible within which to articulate policy. If, on the other hand, there are systematic differences between those who could go to court and those who, in fact, do go to court, then those differences necessarily limit the available policy options.

Do actual litigants differ from potential litigants? In fact, scholars have known for some time that those who choose to go to court are quite different from those who do not. The universe of would-be litigants consists principally of two groups: large, aggregated interests, such as corporations and governments, that have greater resources, expertise, and access to legal representation, and smaller, more particularized interests, such as individuals and small businesses, that possess fewer resources and less sophistication and experience with the judicial system (Galanter 1974 ). Because the former are regular participants in the judicial process, they are commonly known as “repeat players.” The latter group—the “one-shotters”—are distinctive for their more limited use of litigation.

Although there is obviously variation across courts, the use of the judicial system is favored by larger, wealthier interests. Because of their resources and expertise, the repeat players litigate more often—and win more often—than the one-shotters. This finding seems to hold at different levels of the judicial system (Farole 1999 ; Songer, Sheehan, and Haire 1999 ) as well as across different countries. (Dotan 1999 ; Flemming 2005 ). To some extent, however, the bias in favor of the repeat player is mediated by the participation of interest groups in the judicial process. Because organized interests constitute one variety of repeat player, the sheer diversity of interests that use litigation ensures that voices from across the socioeconomic spectrum will enjoy the benefits of sophisticated and experienced representation in the courts (Caldeira and Wright 1990 ). Across a range of countries, organized interests provide these advantages (Brodie 2002 ; Epp 1998 ).

This differentiation among litigants is vital to an understanding of judicial policy-making, since lawyers and organized interests provide an important framing function for the disputes that judges consider. Courts serve as a venue for transforming various social, economic, and political problems into broader questions of public policy. This transformation of disputes from limited and bifurcated conflicts into general questions of public policy is a basic function of the courts (Mather and Yngvesson 1981 ). “Thus, when litigants and lawyers file legal claims and present arguments, they are defining problems and formulating policy alternatives” (Mather 1991 , 148).

Given that lawyers and organized interests have a major hand in defining the terms of legal contention, their decisions to go to court mean that legal policy is guided to a substantial degree by larger sets of interests, such as governments, big business, trade and professional associations, and the like. It is these types of litigants who choose to go to court, who lay the foundation for the policies they seek, and trade on their expertise and experience to help shift judicial policy in their direction.

4 Legal Foundations for Policy

One of the essential conditions for courts to succeed in effecting legal reform is that judges construct an intellectual infrastructure upon which to rest their policy goals, a kind of a network of supporting precedents that will support their ultimate aims. The idea that judge-made law be derived from established principles is a venerated tradition (Cardozo 1921 ; Levi 1948 ). If the policy innovations of judges are to succeed, they must be seen as legitimate. Establishing a legal basis in advance of those innovations serves to smooth the way to acceptance and reduce the likelihood of those policies being rejected.

Legal decision-making often relies heavily upon the tradition of the common law, where judges derive legal principles in the absence of promulgated law and apply those principles in later cases. This approach is a critical component for a great deal of judicial policy. To take one example, the supreme courts of the individual American states are under no obligation to follow one another's decisions, at least as far as issues of state law are concerned. Nevertheless, it is clear that appellate judges look to other state supreme courts, especially those that carry the highest reputations for professionalism, for precedents that can be employed to underwrite their own opinions (Caldeira 1985 ). Likewise, appellate courts at the national level take considerable pains to rely upon the decisions of the US Supreme Court (Songer, Segal, and Cameron 1994 ). Transnationally, courts likewise look outside their own borders for the guidance and experience of other tribunals.

There seems little doubt that judges use these established principles to help gain acceptance of their policy designs. For that reason, for example, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's legal fight against state-imposed segregation took place through a series of small steps over several decades, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition that would have almost certainly failed to produce legal reform (Tushnet 2005 ). Inevitably, when judges seek to innovate without first laying the intellectual cornerstones for their decisions, their policies will be met with resistance. There are ample illustrations of courts provoking resistance by exceeding their respective legal traditions. In the United States, the Supreme Court accelerated the outbreak of the Civil War by declaring in Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1857) that slave-ownership was a right over which Congress exercised no authority (Fehrenbacher 2001 ). In the early twentieth century, rulings that developed and upheld a constitutional liberty of contract, such as Lochner vs. New York (1905), were considered an affront by many states that had enacted various commercial regulations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens (Kens 1998 ). Likewise, the modern conflict over abortion rights is, at least in part, attributable to the Supreme Court making policy in an area (i.e. privacy) whose legal foundations were not well established at the time of the decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) (Hull and Hoffer 2001 ). 3

5 Systemic Support

As should be evident by now, courts require considerable cooperation and support from other actors as a condition for effective policy-making. Without enforcement power, judges must rely upon actors outside the judicial arena to give force to the edicts emanating from the bench. When courts cultivate the support of outsiders, those who control resources and opportunities can, in turn, offer rewards or impose punishments as a means of bringing about the courts' expected changes. This is a basic condition for effective judicial policy (Rosenberg 1991 ).

A strong test of this assumption would be to examine the extent of implementation of any salient policy decision on an issue in which the courts are seen as having assumed a major leadership role. No doubt one of the best cases to fit this category is the elimination of racially segregated public schools in the United States. In 1954, the Supreme Court decided that separating schoolchildren on the basis of race violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The decision in Brown vs. Board of Education ought to have produced major shifts in educational practices, especially in the South, where segregation of African-American children was so widely used.

This decision proved to be enormously unpopular among those most affected by it, producing vocal protests and, in the extreme, calls for the removal of Earl Warren, the chief justice under whom the decision was issued. Local officials in these areas were generally unsupportive and resisted, quite strenuously, any suggestion that their public schools should be integrated. Especially affected were the federal judges in the South—judges who lived and worked in close proximity to the longstanding practice of segregation—who were charged with overseeing the process of desegregation; those whose courts were located in the school districts they supervised were quite lax in bringing about implementation (Giles and Walker 1975 ).

The resistance from these officials was emblematic of a more general opposition. With little support—and no means by which to compel compliance—the Supreme Court faced widespread and sustained refusal to put its policy into effect. Segregation simply continued. “Statistics from the Southern states are truly amazing,” writes Gerald Rosenberg. “For ten years, 1954–64, virtually nothing happened. Ten years after Brown only 1.2 percent of black schoolchildren in the South attended school with whites” (Rosenberg 1991 , 52).

Beginning in 1964, however, compliance with the Court suddenly began to take place at a stunning rate. What had to be satisfied was one of the conditions for judicial efficacy; Congress, opting for the stick rather than the carrot, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which withdrew federal educational funds from school districts that discriminated on the basis of race. Faced with the loss of substantial moneys, public schools in the South quickly fell into line. Thus, the Court required the coordinated efforts of both Congress and the president to provide the support necessary to produce the policy changes that the Court demanded.

In the absence of the sword or the purse—that is, the absence of support from elsewhere within the political system—change will likely not occur if that change generates widely shared opposition. Research on reactions to the Supreme Court's early rulings outlawing devotional activities and Bible readings in public schools were widely disobeyed in the American South (Dolbeare and Hammond 1971 ; Way 1968 ). More recent analysis shows that a variety of outlawed religious practices still remain within Southern schools, often at surprisingly high levels (McGuire 2005 ).

Just as legislative bodies can oppose judicially-mandated change, so too can executive officials. Law enforcement in the United States has long sought to circumvent the Supreme Court's Miranda decision, which requires police to inform suspects who are in custody that they do not have to incriminate themselves. While adhering to the letter of the Court's ruling, police have found creative mechanisms for convincing suspects to disregard their Fifth Amendment privilege, and judges sympathetic to the goals of law enforcement have, for their part, likewise sought to undercut the policy's effectiveness (White 2003 ). In the absence of other institutions to give force to the warnings requirement, police have been successful in muting the influence of judicial policy.

Of course, when judicial policy is directed at those institutions to whom courts must typically turn for support, it is not surprising that they encounter resistance. Coordinate branches of government have interests of their own, and when adjudication arises over the extent of their powers, the political branches can balk at the prospect of judicial encroachment on their authority.

Under such conditions, one option for the political branches is simply to refuse to recognize that they are bound by judicial policy. For example, the decision of the US Supreme Court to invalidate the legislative veto demonstrates how such policy can fail to be effective. The case of Immigration and Naturalization Service vs. Chadha (1983)—a seemingly innocuous issue of deportation of an alien whose visa had expired—tested the ability of Congress to monitor and override the implementation of the law by the executive branch. The Supreme Court held that this mechanism violated the separation of powers by permitting Congress to make policy (i.e. to legislate) without presenting that policy to the president for approval.

The decision was regarded as sweeping in its scope, inasmuch as it called into question more federal laws than the combined total of all previously invalidated congressional enactments. Because the legislative veto was so useful a tool by which Congress could monitor the implementation of its policies, however, it was greeted largely with indifference by legislators. Indeed, Congress continued to incorporate this device into a great deal of subsequent legislation (Korn 1996 ). Any challenge to the prerogatives of those upon whom judges rely for implementation support is prone to be ineffective.

Of course, judges no doubt anticipate such reactions and often trim their sails accordingly. Some of this strategic behavior is conditioned by institutional factors; in England, to take one illustration, the tradition of parliamentary supremacy has limited the independence of British judges (Stevens 2001 ). Other institutional factors relate to the substantive powers with which different branches are entrusted. In the area of foreign affairs, for example, courts are typically loathe to question the decisions of elected officials, even when those actions might be constitutionally questionable (see, e.g., Fisher 2004 ). In other instances, courts recognize that their policies will likely be challenged—at the extreme, reversed by new legislation—and they opt strategically for preserving their legitimacy over imposing ineffective policy (Ferejohn and Weingast 1992 ). High national courts in various countries, such as Germany and Argentina, are also forward-looking and thus will often opt for something other than their preferred policies as a means of preserving or strengthening their authority over the long term (Helmke 2002 ; Vanberg 2001 ).

Similarly, judges in young Asian democracies have also had to come to terms with elected officials. One interesting case occurred in Malaysia in the mid-1980s, where, after a series of decisions that questioned various powers of elected officials, the government sought to remove a number of judges who were regarded as threats to its authority. Knowing that challenging the actions of elected representatives might result in removal from office, “the Malaysian judiciary is a more cautious institution” (Ginsburg 2003 , 80).

In the United States, as well, decisions that conflict with the preferences of lawmakers and outside interests will generate efforts to undo the rulings of the Supreme Court (Meernik and Ignagni 1997 ). Accordingly, the justices have sought to avoid congressional overrides of their interpretations of statutes by taking such considerations into account when formulating their policies (Eskridge 1991 ). Alternatively, when the Court concludes that it is constrained by existing law to make decisions that will provoke public displeasure, it will often openly invite lawmakers to overturn their policies (Hausegger and Baum 1999 ).

Examples such as these illustrate the courts' acute awareness of the need for systemic support. Knowing that their policies demand acceptance and support, judges will strive to produce policy that will, in the long run, help to guarantee their effectiveness by sacrificing short-term gains. Stated differently, courts trade what they expect will be largely symbolic policies for a sustained level of efficacy.

6 Conclusions

Like any set of institutions, courts have a limited degree of policy-making capacity. The political system provides a variety of restrictions that circumscribe their authority. As agents of the legal system, however, courts encounter unique forces that intervene to curb their influence. Among other things, bifurcated disputes tend to limit the terms of policy debate as well as the range of options that judges may consider. Moreover, these options are typically not presented by a representative sample of interests but rather are skewed in favor of advantaged social, economic, and political interests. In addition, because judges make policy within the context of legal conflicts, the various technical criteria that govern how cases may be brought, when, and by whom insert an additional layer of complexity into the process of judicial policy-making.

All this makes judges highly dependent upon other institutions to put their decisions into effect. The various conditions for policy efficacy combine with the absence of enforcement power to require judges to rely in a special way upon other governmental actors to carry out their wishes. In order to cultivate their support, judges must take care to develop a solid legal foundation for any serious form of legal change, lest they lose the valuable political capital upon which they rely for their legitimacy.

There seems little doubt that these constraints genuinely operate on the courts. The limited effectiveness of legal reform that is frequently seen can be traced, in one way or another, to a failure to meet the problematic conditions for efficacy. Across different courts, different countries, and different policy domains, judges discover that they frequently face disregard for their judgments.

It is tempting to interpret such resistance as a sign of judicial impotence. One must bear in mind, however, that to a great degree interinstitutional resistance is endemic to any system of divided authority. Governments that adhere more strongly to notions of separation of powers, however, are more likely to generate friction between the branches. Courts may, perhaps, enjoy less effectiveness in their policy-making, but this is really a difference of degree rather than kind. After all, presidents, prime ministers, and other executives are unable to guarantee consistent support for their agendas. Likewise, legislative decision-makers routinely demonstrate greater attentiveness to the needs of advantaged interests whose resources have always helped to ensure greater access. The limitations of policy-making are scarcely unique to the judiciary.

In addition, the limitations that judges face as they make decisions should not be overstated. Despite their constraints, courts can still monitor the development of the law over a series of cases; they often have access to a good deal of policy information; and even policies that produce discord inside and outside of government can enjoy a high degree of respect. Indeed, recent evidence suggest that the role of courts around the world is actually expanding, with judges assuming an ever increasing scope of influence (see, e.g., Stone Sweet 2000 ; Tate and Vallinder 1995 ).

The future holds remarkable promise for our understanding of judges and judicial policy-making. As courts continue to expand their influence in individual countries, scholars will need to focus more attention on law and courts. Moreover, the increased importance of the expanding European Union will necessarily mean that transnational courts, such as the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, will become increasingly involved in managing the domestic and foreign policies of member nations. At the same time, students of the courts will need to think with particular care about the best methods for studying judicial policy-making. For courts that have only recently begun to take on greater visibility, quantitatively-oriented scholars may be hampered by a relatively small number of observations. More traditional scholars will face difficulties in defining important concepts, such as judicial independence, that will make sense across a range of countries with different institutional arrangements. Where courts are relatively recent political players, it will also take some time before we can speak with confidence about the long-term impact of courts.

Whatever their level of effectiveness, courts will always bear careful scrutiny because they are both political and legal institutions. The substance of their policies—which so often resemble the issues taken up by elected officials—may shade this fact. Still, understanding the rules and norms that uniquely govern the judicial process is essential if one is to make sense of what courts can and cannot reasonably accomplish.

Bond, J. R. and Johnson, C. A.   1982 . Implementing a permissive policy: hospital abortion services after Roe v. Wade.   American Journal of Political Science , 26: 1–24. 10.2307/2110836

Google Scholar

Brodie, I.   2002 . Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Google Preview

Caldeira, G. A.   1985 . The transmission of legal precedent: a study of state supreme courts.   American Political Science Review , 79: 178–93. 10.2307/1956126

—— and Wright, J. R.   1990 . Amici Curiae before the Supreme Court: who participates, when, and how much?   Journal of Politics , 52: 782–806. 10.2307/2131827

Canon, B. C. and Johnson, C. A.   1999 . Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact . Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Cardozo, B. N.   1921 . The Nature of the Judicial Process . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A.   1957 . Decision-making in a democracy: the Supreme Court as a national policy-maker.   Journal of Public Law , 6: 279–95.

Dolbeare, K. M. , and Hammond, P. E.   1971 . The School Prayer Decisions: From Court Policy to Local Practice . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dotan, Y.   1999 . Do the “Haves” still come out ahead? Resource inequalities in ideological courts: the case of the Israeli High Court of Justice.   Law and Society Review , 33: 1059–80. 10.2307/3115159

Drewry, G.   1993 . Judicial politics in Britain: patrolling the boundaries. In Judicial Politics and Policy-Making in Western Europe , ed. M. L. Volcansek . London: Frank Cass.

Edwards, G. C.   1980 . Implementing Public Policy . Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

Epp, C. R.   1998 . The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Eskridge, W. N., Jr.   1991 . Reneging on history? Playing the Court/Congress/President civil rights game.   California Law Review , 79: 613–84. 10.2307/3480831

Farole, D. J., Jr.   1999 . Reexamining litigant success in state supreme courts.   Law & Society Review , 33: 1043–58. 10.2307/3115158

Fehrenbacher, D. E.   2001 . Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics . New York: Oxford University Press.

Ferejohn, J. and Weingast, B.   1992 . A positive theory of statutory interpretation.   International Review of Law and Economics , 12: 263–79. 10.1016/0144-8188(92)90046-T

Fisher, L.   2004 . Presidential War Power, 2nd edn. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Flemming, R. B.   2005 . Tournament of Appeals: Granting Judicial Review in Canada . Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Galanter, M.   1974 . Why the “Haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change.   Law & Society Review , 9: 95–160. 10.2307/3053023

——  1983 . Reading the landscape of disputes: what we know and don't know (and think we know) about our allegedly contentious and litigious society.   UCLA Law Review , 31: 4–72.

Gates, J. B. and Phelps, G. A.   1996 . Intentionalism in constitutional opinions.   Political Research Quarterly , 49: 245–62.

Giles, M. W. and Walker, T. G.   1975 . Judicial policy-making and Southern school segregation.   Journal of Politics , 37: 917–36. 10.2307/2129183

Ginsburg, T.   2003 . Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glick, H. R.   1991 . Policy making in state supreme courts. In The American Courts: A Critical Assessment , ed. J. B. Gates and C. A. Johnson . Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

—— and Emmert, C. F.   1987 . Selection systems and judicial characteristics.   Judicature , 70: 228–35.

Griffith, J. A. G.   1991 . The Politics of the Judiciary , 4th edn. London: Fontana.

Hall, M. G.   1992 . Electoral politics and strategic voting in state supreme courts.   Journal of Politics , 54: 427–46. 10.2307/2132033

Haltom, W. and McCann, M.   2004 . Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hausegger, L. and Baum, L.   1999 . Inviting congressional action: a study of Supreme Court motivations in statutory interpretation.   American Journal of Political Science , 43: 162–85. 10.2307/2991789

Helmke, G.   2002 . The logic of strategic defection: court–executive relations in Argentina under dictatorship and democracy.   American Political Science Review , 96: 291–303.

Heumann, M.   1978 . Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Horowitz, D. L.   1977 . The Courts and Social Policy . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Howard, R. M. and Segal, J. A.   2004 . A preference for deference? The Supreme Court and judicial review.   Political Research Quarterly , 57: 131–43.

Hull, N. E. H. and Hoffer, P. C.   2001 . Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Kens, P.   1998 . Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Klein, D. and Baum, L.   2001 . Ballot information and voting decisions in judicial elections.   Political Research Quarterly , 54: 709–28.

Korn, J.   1996 . The Power of Separation: American Constitutionalism and the Myth of the Legislative Veto . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Kritzer, H. M.   1996 . Courts, justice, and politics in England. In Courts, Law & Politics in Comparative Perspective, ed. H. Jacob , E. Blankenburg , H. M. Kritzer , D. M. Provine , and J. Sanders . New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

——  1998 . Legal Advocacy: Lawyers and Nonlawyers at Work . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Levi, E. H.   1948 . An Introduction to Legal Reasoning . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McGuire, K. T. 2005. Schools, religious establishments, and the U.S. Supreme Court: an examination of policy compliance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

—— and Stimson, J. A.   2004 . The least dangerous branch revisited: new evidence on Supreme Court responsiveness to public preferences.   Journal of Politics , 66: 1018–35.

Mather, L.   1979 . Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal-Case Disposition . Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.

——  1991 . Policy making in state trial courts. In American Courts: A Critical Assesment , ed. J. B. Gates and C. A. Johnson . Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

—— and Yngvesson, B.   1981 . Language, audience, and the transformation of disputes.   Law & Society Review , 15: 775–821.

Meernik, J. and Ignagni, J.   1997 . Judicial review and coordinate construction of the constitution.   American Journal of Political Science , 41: 447–67. 10.2307/2111772

Merry, S. E.   1990 . Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miller, R. E. and Sarat, A.   1980 –81. Grievances, claims, and disputes: assessing the adversary culture.   Law & Society Review , 15: 525–65. 10.2307/3053502

Mishler, W. and Sheehan, R. S.   1996 . Public opinion, the attitudinal model, and Supreme Court decision making: a micro-analytic perspective.   Journal of Politics , 58 (1): 169–200. 10.2307/2960354

Murphy, W. F.   1964 . Elements of Judicial Strategy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Perry, H. W., Jr.   1991 . Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting on the United States Supreme Court . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Rowland, C. K. , and R. A. Carp . 1996 . Politics and Judgment in Federal District Courts . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rosenberg, G. N.   1991 . The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Segal, J. A.   1988 . Amicus Curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Courts.   Western Political Quarterly , 41: 135–44. 10.2307/448461

Songer, D. R. , Segal, J., A. , and Cameron, C. M.   1994 . The hierarchy of justice: testing a principal–agent model of Supreme Court–circuit court interactions.   American Journal of Political Science , 38: 673–96. 10.2307/2111602

——  Sheehan, R. S. , and Haire, S. B.   1999 . Do the “haves” come out ahead over time? Applying Galanter's framework to the decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925–1988.   Law & Society Review , 33: 811–32. 10.2307/3115151

Stevens, R.   2001 . Judicial independence in England: a loss of innocence. In Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy , ed. P. H. Russell and D. M. O'Brien . Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Stone Sweet, A.   1994 . Constitutional politics in France and Germany. In On Law, Politics, and Judicialization , ed. M. Shapiro and A. Stone Sweet . New York: Oxford University Press.

——  2000 . Governing with Judges . New York: Oxford University Press.

Tate, C. N. and Vallinder, T.   1995 . The Global Expansion of Judicial Power . New York: New York University Press.

Tushnet, M. V.   2005 . NAACP's Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925–1950 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Vanberg, G.   2001 . Legislative–judicial relations: a game-theoretic approach to constitutional review.   American Journal of Political Science , 45: 346–61. 10.2307/2669345

Way, H. F., Jr.   1968 . Research on judicial decisions: the prayer and Bible reading cases.   Western Political Quarterly , 21: 189–205. 10.2307/446301

White, W. S.   2003 . Miranda's Waning Protections: Police Interrogation Practices after Dickerson . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority [1936]. 297 U.S. 288.

Brown vs. Board of Education [1954]. 347 U.S. 483.

Dred Scott vs. Sandford [1857]. 19 How. 393.

Elkgrove Unified School District vs. Newdow [2004]. 542 U.S. 1.

Immigration and Naturalization Service vs. Chadha [1983]. 462 U.S. 919.

Lochner vs. New York [1905]. 198 U.S. 45.

Miranda vs. Arizona [1966]. 384 U.S. 436.

The following is adapted from Horowtiz (1977, 33–56).

See Elkgrove Unified School District vs. Newdow [2004] 542 U.S. 1.

Time also seems to be a necessary correlate in this process. Taken by itself, simply having a pretense of legal justification can scarcely be sufficient. Indeed, citation to precedent is the most frequently employed method of legal reasoning, regardless of which side of a case an opinion writer happens to support (see, e.g., Gates and Phelps 1996 ).

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Study of Language in the Judicial Process

Cite this chapter.

• Judith N. Levi 4  

Part of the book series: Law, Society and Policy ((LSPO,volume 5))

385 Accesses

6 Citations

One of the distinguishing features of contemporary research on language in the judicial process is the striking diversity of scholarly disciplines which have begun to make significant contributions to this domain of inquiry. In this volume alone, we find analyses by researchers trained in anthropology, English literature, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, sociology— and various combinations thereof. To be sure, the research reports have a fundamental theme in common: a shared focus on some aspect of language that has particular significance in the world of law. Nevertheless, we may observe among the researchers intriguing differences which lend an unusual richness and stimulating breadth to the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Bibliographies

Kolin, P. C. & Marquardt, R. G. (1986). Research on legal writing: A bibliography. Law Library Journal, 78 492–517.

Google Scholar  

Levi, J. N. (1982). Linguistics, Language, and Law: A Topical Bibliography . Bloom-ington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Out of print)

Levi, J. N. (1985). Rights of linguistic minorities in the United States: An introductory bibliography. Language Planning Newsletter, 11 (3), 2–5.

Overview Articles

Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. In R. L. Abel (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Law and Social Science (special issue of Law and Society Review). Law and Society Review, 24 (3) 445–564.

Levi, J. N. (1985). Applications of linguistics to the language of legal interactions. In P. Bjarkman & V. Raskin (Eds.), The Real-World Linguist: Applications of Linguistics in the 1980s (pp. 230–265). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Levi, J. N. (1989). The invisible network: Contemporary research in the USA on language and the legal process. In E Pupier and J. Woehrling (Eds.), Language and Law [Langue et Droit]: Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Institute of Comparative Linguistic Law (pp. 519–550). Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur.

O’Barr, W. M. (1981). The language of the law. In C. Ferguson & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Language in the USA (pp. 386–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Behavior in Judicial Settings . London: Macmillan.

Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brigham, J. (1978). Constitutional Language . Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Bryant, M. (1962). English in the Law Courts . New York: Frederick Ungar.

Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Danet, B. (Ed.). (1984). Special Issue: Studies of Legal Discourse. TEXT: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 4 (1/3).

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D, & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making Jury Instructions Understandable . Charlottesville, VA: Michie.

Kurzon, D (1986). It is Hereby Performed : Explorations in Legal Speech Acts . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Maynard, D. W. (1984). Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation . New York: Plenum Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Mellinkoff, D (1963). The Language of the Law . Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown.

Mellinkoff, D. (1982). Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense . New York: Charles Scribner’s.

O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom (in Studies on Law and Social Control Series). New York: Academic Press.

Pitkin, H. F. (1972). Wittgenstein and Justice . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Tosi, Q (1979). Voice Identification: Theory and Legal Applications . Baltimore: University Park Press.

Atkinson, J. M, & Drew, E (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal behavior in judicial settings . London: Macmillan.

Benson, R. W. (1985). The end of legalese: The game is over. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 13 (3), 519–573.

Berk-Seligson, S. (1988). The need for quality interpreting services in the courtroom. The Courtroom Manager, 3 (2), 10–14 [Williamsburg, VA: National Association for Court Management].

Bogoch, B., & Danet, B. (1984). Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli legal aid office. TEXT , 4(1–3), 249–275.

Bornstein, M. H. (1974). Perceptual generalization: A note on the peak shift. Psychological Bulletin, 81 , 802–808.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bornstein, M. H. (1976). Name codes and color memory. American Journal of Psychology, 89 , 269–279.

Brière, E. (1978). Limited English speakers and the Miranda rights. TESOL Quarterly , 12(3), 235–245.

Cady, H. M. (1924). On the psychology of testimony. American Journal of Psychology, 35 ,110–112.

Campbell, L., & Holland, V. M. (1982). Understanding the language of documents because readability formulas don’t. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 157–172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Carmichael, L. C, Hogan, H. P., & Walter, A. A. (1932). Experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15 , 73–86.

Caesar-Wolf, B. (1984). The construction of “adjudicable” evidence in a West German civil hearing. Text, 4 , 193–224.

Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79 (7), 1306–1374.

Charrow, V R., Crandall, J. A., & Charrow, R. P. (1982). Characteristics and functions of legal language. In R. Kittredge & J. Lehrberger (Eds.), Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains (pp. 175–190). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Criminal Justice Newsletter. July 1,1985. Problems cited in greater use of court interpreters. Vol. 16, No. 13.

Danet, B. (1984a). The magic flute: A prosodie analysis of binomial expressions in legal Hebrew. Text, 4 , 143–172.

Danet, B. (Ed.). (1984b). Special issue: Studies of legal discourse. TEXT: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse , 4(1/3).

Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., & Kermish, N. C. (1980). Threats to the life of the president: An analysis of linguistic issues. Media Law and Practice, 1 (2), 180–190.

Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., Kermish, N. C, Ram, H. J., & Stayman, D. G. (1976). An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom. In R. W. Shuy & A. Shnukal (Eds.), Language use and the uses of language [N-Wave V] (pp. 222–234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Davison, A., & Green, G. M. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dunstan, R. (1980). Contexts of coercion: Analyzing properties of courtroom “questions.” British Journal of Law and Society, 7 , 61–77.

Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Toward understandable jury instructions. Judicature 65(8/9), 432–443.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1 , 163–190.

Elwork, A., Sales, B. D, & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable . Charlottesville, VA: Michie/Bobbs-Merrill.

Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C, & O’Barr, W M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 14 , 226–279.

Felker, D. (1980). Document design: A review of the relevant research . Washington, DC: Document Design Center.

Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Prepared testimony—OTC [over-the-counter] drug advertising rule. Testimony delivered to the Federal Trade Commission. Unpublished manuscript version, 58 pp.

Garfinkel, A. D. (1978). A sociolinguistic analysis of the language of advertising . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (1974). The origin of the term ‘ethnomethodology.’ In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology . Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

Geis, M. L. (1982). The language of television advertising . New York: Academic Press.

Goodrich, P. (1984). Law and language: An historical and critical introduction. Journal of Law and Society, 11 , 173–206.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 163–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hancher, M. (1976). Speech acts and the law. In R. W Shuy & Shnukal, A. (Eds.), Language use and the uses of language [N-Wave V] (pp. 245–256). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Hastie, R., Landsman, R., & Loftus, E. G. (1978). Eyewitness testimony: The dangers of guessing. Jurimetrics Journal, 19 , 1–8.

Holland, M., & Rose, A. (1981). A comparison of prose and algorithms for presenting complex instructions . (Document Design Project Technical Report No. 17). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt.

Jefferson, T. (1905). The writings of Thomas Jefferson (20 volumes). A. A. Lipscomb (Ed.). Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association.

Johnson, B. (1976). Communicative competence in American trial courtrooms. Centrum , 4(2), 139–149.

Johnson, R. E. (1984). Courtroom interaction and the application of linguistic arguments: An essay . Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

Kay, H. (1955). Learning and retaining verbal material. British Journal of Psychology, 46 , 81–100.

Kevelson, R. (1982). Language and legal speech acts: Decisions. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics in the professions (pp. 121–132). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kramarae, C. (1981). Women and men speaking . Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Kurzon, D. (1984). Themes, hyperthemes and the discourse structure of British legal texts. TEXT, 4 , 31–56.

Kurzon, D. (1986). It is hereby performed: Explorations in legal speech acts . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place . New York: Harper & Row.

Langendoen, D. T. (1971). Linguistic practices of the Federal Trade Commission. The Linguistic Reporter, 13 (2), 1–6.

Levi, J. N. (1982a). Linguistics, language and the law: A topical bibliography . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Levi, J. N. (1982b). Language and law in the U.S.A. Unpublished manuscript.

Levi, J. N. (1986). Applications of linguistics to the language of legal interactions. In P. C. Bjarkman & V. Raskin, (Eds.), The real-world linguist: Applications of linguistics in the 1980s (pp. 230–265). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Liebes-Plesner, T. (1984). Rhetoric in the service of justice: The sociolinguistic construction of stereotypes in an Israeli rape trial. TEXT, 4 , 173–192.

Lind, E. A., & O’Barr, W. M. (1979). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 66–87). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. (Also published 1979. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.)

Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Loftus, E. E, & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13 , 585–589.

Loftus, E. E, & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society , 5, 86–88.

Marquis, K. H., Marshall, J., & Oskamp, S. (1972). Testimony validity as a function of question form, atmosphere and item difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 , 167–186.

Maynard, D. (1984). Inside plea bargaining . New York: Plenum Press.

Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law . Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown.

Nieland, R. G. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at a modern movement to improve the jury system . Chicago: American Judicature Society.

O’Barr, W. M. (1981). The language of the law. In C. A. Ferguson & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Language in the U.S.A . (pp. 386–406). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom . New York: Academic Press.

Philips, S. U. (1982). The language socialization of lawyers: Acquiring the cant. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling (pp. 176–209). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Philips, S. U. (1984). The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: A study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. TEXT , 4(1–3), 225–248.

Philips, S. U. (1985). Written and spoken law in the American courtroom: The taking of guilty pleas. To appear in S. U. Philips, Ideological Diversity in Courtroom Discourse: Due Process Judicial Discretion in the Guilty Plea . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pitkin, H. F. (1972). Wittgenstein and justice . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pomerantz, A., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and the study of courtroom interaction. In D. J. Müller, D. E. Blackman, & A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Psychology and law (pp. 283–297). Chichester, England: John Wiley.

Pousada, A. (1979). Interpreting for language minorities in the courts. In J. E. Alatis & R. Tucker (Eds.), Language in public life (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1979 ) (pp. 186–208). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Probert, W (1972a). Law, language and communication . Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Probert, W. (1972b). Words consciousness: Law and the control of language. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 23 , 374–390.

Redish, J. C. (1979). Readability . Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Redish, J. C. (1981). How to write regulations (and other legal documents) in clear English. In R. A. Givens (Ed.), Drafting documents in plain language — 1981 . New York: Practicing Law Institute.

Schane, S. A. (1989). A speech act analysis of consideration in contract law. In P Pupier & J. Woehrling (Eds.), Language and law (pp. 581–590). Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur.

Scherer, K. (1979). Voice and speech correlates of perceived social influence in simulated juries. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 88–120). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Also: (1978) Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Shuy, R. W. (1981). Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 113–126) [GURT 1981]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Snee, T. J., & Lush, D. E. (1941). Interaction of the narrative and interrogatory methods of obtaining testimony. The Journal of Psychology, 11 , 229–336.

Swett, D. H. (1969). Cultural bias in the American legal system. Law and Society Review , 4(1), 79–110.

Thorne, B., & Henley, N. (Eds.). (1975). Language and sex: Difference or dominance . Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Tiersma, P M. (1984). The language of offer and acceptance . Unpublished manuscript, Boalt School of Law, The University of California at Berkeley. [Uses speech act theory]

Tiersma, E M. (1986). The language of offer and acceptance: Speech acts and the question of intent. California Law Review , 74(1), 189–232.

Tiersma, E M. (1987). The language of defamation. Texas Law Review , 66(2), 303–350.

Vargas, D. M. (1984). Two types of legal discourse: Transitivity in American appellate opinions and casebooks. TEXT4 , 9–30.

Vernon, M., & Coley, J. (1978). Violation of constitutional rights: The language-impaired person and the Miranda warnings. Journal of Rehabilitation of the Deaf , 21(4), 1–8.

Walker, A. G. (1982). Discourse rights of witnesses: Their circumscription in trial. Sociolinguistic working papers (No. 95). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Walker, A. G. (1985). From oral to written: The “verbatim” transcription of legal proceedings . Doctoral dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University.

Walker, A. G. (1986). Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse (pp. 57–80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Walker, A. G. (1987). The verbatim record: The myth and the reality. In S. Fisher & A. Todd (Eds.), Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, education, and law (pp. 205–222). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wallace, W. D. (1986). The admissibility of expert testimony on the discourse analysis of recorded conversations. University of Florida Law Review, 38 (1), 69–115.

Walmsley, S. A., Scott, K. M., & Lehrer, R. (1981). Effects of document simplification on the reading comprehension of the elderly. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13 (3), 237–248.

Walter, B. (1988). The jury summation as speech genre . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wright, P. (1981). Is legal jargon a restrictive practice? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts (pp. 121–145). London: Macmillan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Linguistics, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA

Judith N. Levi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA

Forensic Linguistics Associates, Falls Church, Virginia, USA

Anne Graffam Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Levi, J.N. (1990). The Study of Language in the Judicial Process. In: Levi, J.N., Walker, A.G. (eds) Language in the Judicial Process. Law, Society and Policy, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_1

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4899-3721-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4899-3719-3

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Judicial process llm notes

Related Papers

ijetrm journal

Ijetrm Journal

The Indian Supreme Court has been thought-about in concert of the foremost powerful court within the world for its capability of wide jurisdiction. The court is more and more accessible for everybody around the country, it doesn't lie one sided for explicit cluster of individuals. This paper intends to travel through, actual record of the operating of the Court. The Indian Supreme Court has been selected "the most intense court on the planet" for its wide venue, it's so much reaching comprehension of its own forces, and also the billion or a lot of people underneath its authority. For the betterment of the analysis, the investigator had chosen the sampling methodology within which sampling was taken and also the sample size of this analysis is 1499 samples and during this article each primary and secondary sources were taken and analysis exhausted empirical methodology. on these lines, the Supreme Court has the venue to have interaction Associate in Nursing application underneath Article thirty-two for the problem of a longtime writs, as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo-warranto and judicial writ for the implementation of basic rights. The Supreme Court, in Republic of India|Bharat|Asian country|Asian nation} controls the total legal framework within the nation and involves a very important place because the gatekeeper of the Constitution and caretaker of the elemental Rights of the themes as a court of record it sets the right for all Courts in India. The extraordinary obligation of deciphering the Constitution lays on the Supreme Court of Asian nation. Thus the Supreme Court additionally acts because the deciphering body.

Harvard Law Review

Sandhya Kandukuri

Interdisciplinary Studies on The Indian Legal System (Seminar Course)

Sidharth Chauhan

This seminar course was taught to upper-level students at NALSAR Hyderabad. It was delivered four times, that is during the January-April 2015, January-April 2016, January-April 2017 and January-April 2018 terms. The instructor was Mr. Sidharth Chauhan.

Meera Mathew

This article deals with the changing dimensions of the Indian judiciary in playing a fundamental role in shaping the constitutional jurisprudence.same. It is stated that from its nascent stage, the Apex court in India has struggled with the issue of striking an equilibrium between economic and social reform programmes on the one hand and establishing the credibility of India by fostering respect for rule of law, on the other.

Debarshi Chakraborty

The discussions about the law should be seen from a legal and objective perspective rather than letting political biases cloud the discourse.

IJAR Indexing

An analysis of the appointment of judges and an overview to the collegium system has been made in this research paper. Furthermore, in relation to the Judges? appointment of SC and HC, all significant cases are evaluated. The Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) and upheld the Collegiums System of the appointment of judges. India is the only country of the world where judges are appointed by themselves. In order to make the collegium System more transparent and democratic reforms are needed.

Govind Bhattacharjee

Radical restructuring of the judicial system is necessary if our aim is to administer justice to citizens

Judicial Process and Statutory Interpretation (Elective Course)

This is the course plan for an elective course taught to upper-level students at NALSAR. It was delivered five times, namely during the July-October 2013, January-April 2015, January-April 2016, January-April 2017 and July-October 2018 terms. The title is 'Judicial Process and Statutory Interpretation' and the instructor was Mr. Sidharth Chauhan.

lanka venkat

Sidharth Patel

RELATED PAPERS

BMC evolutionary biology

Omri Bronstein

marilisa coelho

mandana shirazi

Rev. méd. Inst. Peru. …

Victor Martin Alvarado Caceres

Physical Review B

Oliver Hoidn

Victor Kohn

Dr. Anu Sharma

Journal of Applied Polymer Science

Madhumita Saroop

Revista médica de Chile

carmen marisol sepulveda rojas

Materials Research

farhad gharavi

IFAC-PapersOnLine

Carlos Fernando Guerrero Martínez

Social Psychological and Personality Science

Claudio Torres

Journal of Adolescent Health

Ashlyn Sparrow

Applied Catalysis B: Environmental

Miguel Bañares

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Sam Sung Sam Sung

Veterinary Medicine: Research and Reports

Nebyou Moje

Revista Galega de Economía

Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

Zehra Özdemir

Physiological Reports

James Bagley

International Journal of Cognitive Therapy

Razvan Predatu

Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications

Vassilios Constantoudis

Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

Bart De Decker

Physics of Fluids

Vladimir Zeitlin

Geriatrics, gerontology and aging

Mario U Perez-Zepeda

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

FIND YOUR MP

Legislatures

Bills & acts.

• Committee Reports

Judicial Processes and their Reforms

Standing Committee Report Summary

The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice (Chair: Mr Sushil Kumar Modi) submitted its report on “Judicial Process and their Reforms”, on August 07, 2023.  Key observations and recommendations of the Committee include:

Regional benches of the Supreme  Court:  The Committee observed that the Delhi-centric Supreme Court creates a significant hurdle for litigants coming from faraway areas of the country.  The Committee stated that the demand for establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court is based on the fundamental right of access to justice.  As per Article 130 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will sit in Delhi or in such other place or places as the Chief Justice of India, with the approval of the President, may appoint.  The Committee recommended the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court.   It noted that Article 130 may be invoked to establish regional benches at four or five locations.  It suggested that the regional benches may decide appellate matters, while Constitutional matters may be dealt at Delhi.

Social diversity in the appointment of judges:  The Committee observed that the higher judiciary (Supreme Court and High Courts) suffers from a diversity deficit.  It noted that the representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Women, and Minorities is far below the desired levels and does not reflect the social diversity of India.  For instance, since 2018, the percentage of High Court judges appointed from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was 3% and 1.5%, respectively.  Further, it noted that there is no provision for reservation in the judicial appointments of the higher judiciary.  It suggested that the Supreme Court and High Court’s Collegiums should recommend an adequate number of women and candidates from marginalised communities including minorities.  It recommended that the Department of Justice collect data of the social status of judges presently serving in the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Retirement age for judges:  The Committee observed that the retirement age of judges needs to be increased to keep pace with advances in medical sciences and increased longevity.  Currently, the retirement age for Supreme Court and High Court judges is 65 and 62 years, respectively.  It recommended increasing the retirement age for Supreme Court and High Court judges and amending the relevant Articles of the Constitution.   Additionally, a system of appraisal may be devised by the Supreme Court Collegium to evaluate the performance and heath conditions of judges before extending their tenure.

Mandatory declaration of assets:  The Committee noted that as a practice all constitutional functionaries and government servants must file annual returns of their assets and liabilities.  However, judges are not required to disclose their assets and liabilities.  The Committee recommended that the central government bring out a law to mandate the higher judiciary judges to furnish their property returns annually to the appropriate authority.

Vacations in the Supreme Court and High Courts:  The Committee noted that the entire court going on vacation at once leads to the higher judiciary shutting down for a couple of months per year.  It observed that the demand to eliminate vacations in Courts stems from: (i) pendency of cases, and (ii) the inconvenience faced by litigants.   For example, the Committee noted that pendency in High Courts was over 60 lakh cases.  The Committee suggested that instead of all judges going on vacation simultaneously, individual judges should take their leave at different times throughout the year.

Annual reports of High Courts:  The Committee likened the publication of an annual report to an assessment of the institution’s performance over the past year.  Presently, the Supreme Court publishes its annual report, which also depicts work done by all High Courts.  The Committee observed that only some High Court are publishing their annual reports.  It recommended the Department of Justice to approach the Supreme Court to issue directions to all High Courts to prepare and publish their annual reports. 

DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information.  You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”).  The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s).  PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete.  PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group.  This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

• ACS Publications

Call For Papers: Lessons Learned in Organic Process Chemistry

• May 9, 2024

This Special Issue will highlight important details on negative results and unexpected troubles encountered in day-to-day research and development activities. Submit your manuscript by April 1, 2025.

This Special Issue aims to share process researchers’ expertise in overcoming challenges associated with negative outcomes and unexpected results, addressing troubles caused by a lack of understanding of reactions and physical properties, emerging new impurities due to changes in manufacturing methods, examples of catalytic reaction deactivation during scale-up studies, difficulties in establishing global supply chains, and more.

Organic Process Research & Development is a journal that serves as an authoritative source of scalable procedures for synthetic chemists. As such, it is a communication tool between industrial chemists and chemists working in universities and research institutes. It reports original work from the broad field of industrial process chemistry but also presents academic results that are relevant, or potentially relevant, to industrial applications. Process chemistry is the science that enables the safe, environmentally benign, and ultimately economical manufacturing of organic compounds that are required in larger amounts to help address the needs of society.

Topics include, but are not limited to :

• Pharmaceuticals
• Agrochemicals
• Flavors and Food Additives
• Fragrances, Cosmetics, and Personal Care Products
• Petrochemicals

Submit your manuscript by April 1, 2025.

Organizing Editors

Dr. Kai Rossen , Editor-in-Chief, Organic Process Research & Development Jiuzhou Pharmaceutical, China

Dr. Yasumasa Hayashi , Editorial Advisory Board, Organic Process Research & Development Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Japan

Dr. Hirotsugu Usutani , Guest Editor Sumitomo Pharma Co., Japan

Dr. Makoto Michida , Guest Editor Daiichi Sankyo Co., Japan

Submission Information

We welcome submissions for this Special Issue through April 1, 2025 . For more information on submission requirements, please visit the journal’s Author Guidelines page.

Accepted manuscripts for consideration in this Special Issue can be formatted as Articles, Reviews, or Perspectives. For Reviews and Perspectives, we ask that you discuss the proposed topic with us by sending an inquiry to [email protected] . Papers accepted for publication for this Special Issue will be available ASAP (as soon as publishable) online as soon as they are accepted. After all submissions have been published, they will then be compiled online on a dedicated landing page to form the Special Issue. Manuscripts submitted for consideration will undergo the full rigorous peer review process expected from ACS journals.

How to Submit

• Log in to the ACS Paragon Plus submission site.
• Choose Organic Process Research & Development .
• Select your manuscript type, and, under "Special Issue Selection," choose “ Lessons Learned in Organic Process Chemistry ."

If you have any general questions regarding submission to this Special Issue, please contact the Editorial Office at [email protected] .

Open Access

There are diverse open access options for publications in American Chemical Society journals. Please visit our Open Science Resource Center for more information.

Safety Information in Journal Articles

Including a clear, articulate safety summary statement in your research is vital to ensuring that others who reproduce or expand upon your work can prepare for significant hazards and conduct their own methods as safely as possible. Read more about crafting safety statements in our ACS Axial post series .

Stay Connected with Organic Process Research & Development

Want the latest stories delivered to your inbox each month, organic process research & development.

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

How Paperpal is Enhancing Academic Productivity and Accelerating Research in China

Paperpal , by Editage, has emerged as a trusted AI academic writing assistant for more than 800,000 authors worldwide, supporting them from the ideation stage all the way to submission readiness for journals. It blends over 21 years of STM experience with cutting-edge AI technology to provide comprehensive writing, language editing, and submission readiness support that boosts their chances of successful publication.  

Students and researchers from China’s top universities, government organizations, and research institutions are using Paperpal to enhance their writing and submit their work for publication in leading academic publications. In this case study, we delve into how Paperpal is transforming the writing process for academics in China, ensuring high-quality writing, saving hours of time for research, and enhancing their overall productivity . 

Table of Contents

• Challenges in Writing for Academics in China  
• Enter Paperpal: Your One Stop for Excellence in Academic Writing 
• Growth in Number of Paperpal Users in China 
• Hours of Time Saved to Increase Productivity 
• Adoption by Students at Top Institutions in China 
• Powering Research Excellence and Innovation 
•  Winning the Trust of Chinese Researchers 

Challenges in Writing for Academics in China

Academic writing comes with its unique set of challenges, particularly for non-native English speaking researchers. A PLOS survey showed that as compared to native English speakers, those with low English proficiency take as much as 91% more time to read English language papers and 51% more time to write a paper in English. 1 This was supported by another study on English academic writing in China, which revealed that while Chinese academics were often clear on what and how to write, almost half of them wrote in Chinese first and then translated it into English. 2

Chinese researchers also find it difficult to access efficient proofreading and accurate translation support. They typically wait for busy peers and seniors for help in reviewing their  work or are forced to rely on professional services that cost them time and money. These time-consuming and often expensive processes may cause delays in research publication and reduced academic productivity. While there are many AI tools available today, very few are tailored to understand and enhance the academic writing process in particular. This is where Paperpal emerges as a reliable writing partner for Chinese researchers. With its comprehensive feature suite that provides human precision at machine speed, it helps Chinese academics write confidently and deliver high-quality English writing. 

Enter Paperpal: Your One Stop for Excellence in Academic Writing

Paperpal , the all-in-one AI academic writing assistant, has been used and loved by more than 13,800 students, professors, and medical professionals in China. From Paperpal’s extensive suite of checks and generative AI features, Chinese students and researchers found real-time language checks, precise academic translation, paraphrasing assistance, academic tone support, and research article outline features to be the most useful among many other features to assist you in your writing journey . With these features, Paperpal has enabled academics in China to overcome linguistic hurdles in the writing process, polish their writing quality, and increase productivity.  

Paperpal Impact: Accelerating Academic Excellence and Boosting Productivity

Committed to providing researchers in China with a more streamlined academic writing experience, Paperpal has introduced a number of features and capabilities, which has transformed the path to academic success for Chinese researchers. 

Growth in Number of Paperpal Users in China

Fueled by a user-friendly website that provides all relevant details in Chinese and localized payment options, Paperpal has seen a steady rise in the number of users from China from July 2022 to April 2024. Academics in China have created more than 29,000 documents on Paperpal, using it to translate and improve their content within a matter of minutes.  

In addition, Chinese researchers also uploaded 26,527 manuscripts to Paperpal Preflight and benefitted from the customized submission readiness checks before submitting to reputed journals; this accounts for an impressive 24.6% of total uploads globally .  

Hours of Time Saved to Increase Productivity

Academics in China have used Paperpal’s language correction to enhance over 43 million words. This could have effectively saved them more than one million minutes in proofreading time*, considering that experts can proofread approximately 2,500 words per hour.  

In addition to using Paperpal for improved language, Chinese researchers have also used it to instantly translate over 700,000 words. This could have saved them more than 67,000 hours of translation time*, considering experts can translate 2,000 words per day. No wonder that our Translation feature received a 100% positive rating for its fast, accurate, and clear translations, that is, ALL the users from China who rated this feature found it useful and gave it a thumbs up . 

* These are only preliminary estimations based on the real-time processed volumes by Paperpal and the assumption of an average human proofreading/translation speed.  

Adoption by Students at Top Institutions in China

Paperpal has seen high registrations and paid users among Chinese students from six top universities in China, as per the 2024 Times Higher Education China University Rankings. 3 These include the country’s most prominent institutions, such as: 

• Tsinghua University 
• Peking University 
• Fudan University 
• Zhejiang University 
• University of Science and Technology China 
• Nanjing University 

Powering Research Excellence and Innovation

Apart from the top Chinese universities, Paperpal has also won the trust of research professionals from government organizations and leading institutions , including:  

• 301 Hospital, the largest comprehensive military hospital in China 
• Shengjjng Hospital of China 
• Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute 
• Biotech Pharmaceutical Corporation Ltd., one of the top pharma companies in the country. 

Paperpal is a trusted tool for researchers looking to publish in reputed scientific publishers. Chinese researchers, especially in the field of medicine, found Paperpal Preflight’s pre-submission checks especially useful to polish and submit their work to prestigious publishers , which include the following: 

• Wolters Kluwer  
• IOP Publishing 
• Karger 
• Wiley 
• Taylor & Franics 
• Emerald 
• American Association for Cancer Research 
• American Society of Clinical Oncology 
• Cambridge University Press 
• American Academy of Pediatrics 

Winning the Trust of Chinese Researchers

As the number of Chinese students, researchers, and professionals using Paperpal increases, so does the trust that it receives. In fact, Paperpal has an outstanding Net Promotor Score of 75, especially for its AI translation and academic writing enhancements, which reflects high satisfaction levels and strong recommendations from Chinese academics .

Paperpal is continually developing and adding new AI features to transform the academic writing journey, and we take pride in earning the love and trust of our users. Read what two of our users from China have to say about Paperpal’s ease of use, accuracy, and effectiveness: 

Mr. Ye, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, said, “The language editing feature works well, easily identifying grammatical problems and categorizing errors to give a basis for revision. The Rewrite feature has some weight reduction effect. I was very impressed and have recommended it to students who are still writing their first SCI.”   

Liu Lu, PhD at Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, said, “Paperpal is a writing tool with strong academic attributes, translating and transcribing terms accurately, and then juxtaposing the language editing and synonym replacement features to bring up the depth and richness of the manuscript. Those who write papers will feel like they found treasure.”

Paperpal is transforming the tedious process of academic writing for Chinese students and researchers, empowering them to write better, faster, and in an ethical manner. By automating necessary checks and simplifying each step in the writing journey, Paperpal is helping to save researchers’ time while enabling them to write high-quality content and improve their productivity. This, in turn, helps researchers focus on their research, fueling academic excellence and moving them closer to publishing success. Paperpal also brings major benefits for universities, organizations, and publishers, helping them nurture an environment of excellence and growth that enables them to contribute to and further advance science. 

It’s time to experience the advantage Paperpal brings to your academic writing. Start writing with Paperpal for free now or write to [email protected] for more details, and we’ll be happy to help!

References:  

• Amano T, Ramírez-Castañeda V, Berdejo-Espinola V, Borokini I, Chowdhury S, Golivets M, et al. (2023) The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science. PLoS Biol 21(7): e3002184.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002184   
• Liu, M. Problems and Solutions in Response to Postgraduates’ English Academic Writing – A Case of SWPU. Journal of Education and Educational Research . ISSN: 2957-9465 | Vol. 3, No. 3, 2023 
• Best universities in China 2024, Times Higher Education University Rankings. Available online at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-china

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• The Do’s & Don’ts of Using Generative AI Tools Ethically in Academia
• Addressing Your Queries on AI Ethics, Plagiarism, and AI Detection
• Paperpal Copilot is Live: Experience The Generative AI Tool Academics Can Trust
• Grammarly Review: Features, Pricing, and Free Alternatives  

How to Write a Successful Book Chapter for an Academic Publication?

How paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and strengthen arguments in a pinch, you may also like, how paperpal’s research feature helps you develop and..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing  , how to use ai to enhance your college....