1932

Abstract

The concept of adversarial legalism has been widely used by scholars of law, public administration, public policy, political science, sociology, and Law and Society, but the varying ways in which the concept has been employed raise concerns that it has become stretched to the point of incoherence. We argue that adversarial legalism entails both a style, an everyday practice of dispute resolution and policy making with distinct attributes, and a structure of governance that can be compared to other structures of authority. Untangling these aspects of adversarial legalism allows us to make sense of its different uses and identify future avenues of inquiry. Despite its wide application, adversarial legalism is in fact underutilized, especially in studies aimed at understanding consequences of judicialization, legalization, and juridification in the United States and abroad.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041620-083410
2020-10-13
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/16/1/annurev-lawsocsci-041620-083410.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041620-083410&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abel R. 1988. The crisis is injuries, not liability. Proc. Acad. Political Sci. 37:131–41
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes J. 2009. In defense of asbestos tort litigation: rethinking legal process analysis in a world of uncertainty, second bests, and shared policy-making responsibility. Law Soc. Inq. 34:15–29
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes J. 2011. Dust-Up: Asbestos Litigation and the Failure of Commonsense Policy Reform Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes J, Burke TF. 2006. The diffusion of rights: from law on the books to organizational rights practices. Law Soc. Rev. 40:3493–524
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barnes J, Burke TF. 2012. Making way: legal mobilization, organizational response, and wheelchair access. Law Soc. Rev. 46:1167–98
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes J, Burke TF. 2015. How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation, and the Struggle over Injury Compensation New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnes J, Hevron H. 2018. Framed? Judicialization and the risk of negative episodic media coverage. Law Soc. Inq. 43:31059–91
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berrey E, Nelson RL, Nielsen LB 2017. Rights on Trial: How Workplace Discrimination Law Perpetuates Inequality Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bignami F. 2011. Cooperative legalism and the non-Americanization of European regulatory styles: the case of data privacy. Am. J. Comp. Law 59:411–61
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bignami F, Kelemen RD. 2018. Kagan's Atlantic crossing: adversarial legalism, Eurolegalism, and cooperative legalism in European regulatory style. See Burke & Barnes 2018 81–97
  11. Bogus C. 2001. Why Lawsuits Are Good for America: Disciplined Democracy, Big Business, and Common Law New York: N.Y. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Burbank SB, Farhang S. 2017. Rights and Retrenchment: The Counterrevolution against Federal Litigation New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Burke TF. 2001. Lawyers, Lawsuits and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Burke TF, Barnes J. 2009. Is there an empirical literature on rights. Stud. Law Politics Soc. 48:69–91
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Burke TF, Barnes J 2018. Varieties of Legal Order: The Politics of Adversarial and Bureaucratic Legalism New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cioffi J. 2009. Adversarialism and legalism: juridification and litigation in corporate governance. Regul. Gov. 3:3235–57
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coffee J. 1995. Class wars: the dilemma of mass tort class action. Columbia Law Rev 95:1343–465
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Collier D, Mahon JE. 1993. Conceptual “stretching” revisited: adapting categories in comparative analysis. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 87:4845–55
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Crohley S. 2008. Regulation and Public Interest: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Damaska M. 1986. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniels S, Martin J. 2015. Tort Reform, Plaintiffs’ Lawyers and Access to Justice Lawrence: Univ. Press Kans.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Derthick M. 2002. Up in Smoke: From Legislation to Litigation in Tobacco Politics Washington, DC: CQ, 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dodd LG. 2015. The rights revolution in the age of Obama and Ferguson: policing, the rule of law, and the elusive quest for accountability. Perspect. Politics 13:3657–79
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dunning T. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Edelman LB. 2016. Working Law: Courts, Corporations, and Symbolic Civil Rights Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Edelman LB, Krieger LH, Eliason SR, Albiston CR, Mellema V 2011. When organizations rule: judicial deference to institutionalized employment structures. Am. J. Sociol. 117:3888–954
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Epp CR. 2009. Making Rights Real: Activists, Bureaucrats, and the Creation of the Legalistic State Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Farhang S. 2010. The Litigation State: Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Feeley MM, Rubin EL. 1998. Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Feeley MM, Swearingen V. 2018. Devolving standards: California's structural failures in response to prison litigation. See Burke & Barnes 2018 155–77
  31. Francis MM. 2014. Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fukuyama F. 2014. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy New York: Farrar, Straus & Giraux
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fuller L. 1978. The forms and limits of adjudication. Harvard Law Rev 92:353–409
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Galanter M. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:195–151
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gash AL. 2015. Below the Radar: How Silence Can Save Civil Rights New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gauri V, Brinks DM 2008. Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gerring J. 2012. Mere description. Br. J. Political Sci. 42:4721–46
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gluck AR, Hall A, Curfman G 2018. Civil litigation and the opioid epidemic: the role of courts in a national health crisis. J. Law Med. Ethics 46:351–66
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hamlin R. 2014. Let Me Be a Refugee: Administrative Justice and the Politics of Asylum in the United States, Canada, and Australia New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hendley K. 2018. Coping with auto accidents in Russia. See Burke & Barnes 2018 98–130
  41. Hevron P. 2018. Judicialization and its effects: experiments as a way forward. Laws 7:220–41
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hirschl R. 2008. The judicialization of politics. The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics K Whittington, D Keleman, G Caldieria 119–41 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Horowitz D. 1977. The Courts and Social Policy Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Issacharoff S, Witt JF. 2004. The inevitability of aggregate settlement: an institutional account of American tort law. Vanderbilt Law Rev 57:51571–636
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kagan RA. 1995. What socio-legal scholars should do when there is too much law to study. . Socio-Legal Stud 22:1140–48
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kagan RA. 1997. Should Europe worry about adversarial legalism. Oxford J. Leg. Stud. 17:2165–84
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kagan RA. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kagan RA. 2019. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Keck TM. 2014. Judicialized Politics in Polarized Times Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kelemen RD. 2011. Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kritzer HM, Silbey SS. 2003. In Litigation: Do the Haves Still Come Out Ahead? Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lytton TD. 2008. Holding Bishops Accountable: How Lawsuits Helped the Catholic Church Confront Clergy Sexual Abuse Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Mashaw JL. 1985. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Mather L. 1998. Theorizing about trial courts: lawyers, policymaking, and tobacco litigation. Law Soc. Inq. 23:4897–936
    [Google Scholar]
  55. McCann M. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. McCann M, Haltom W. 2018. Seeing through the smoke: adversarial legalism and U.S. tobacco politics. See Burke & Barnes 2018 57–80
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Melnick RS. 2018a. The Transformation of Title IX: Regulating Gender Equality in Education Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Melnick RS. 2018b. Adversarial legalism, civil rights, and the exceptional American state. See Burke & Barnes 2018 20–56
  59. Merton R. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structures New York: Free
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Miller RE, Sarat A. 1980. Grievances, claims, and disputes: assessing the adversary culture. Law Soc. Rev. 15:3–4525–66
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Murakawa N. 2014. The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Nielsen LB, Nelson RL, Lancaster R 2010. Individual justice or collective legal mobilization? Employment discrimination litigation in the post-civil rights United States. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 7:2175–201
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Nolette P. 2015. Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America Lawrence: Univ. Press Kans.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Rubin E, Feeley MM. 2003. Judicial policy-making and litigation against the government. Univ. Pa. J. Const. Law 5:617–63
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sabel CF, Simon W. 2004. Destabilization rights: how public law succeeds. Harvard Law Rev 117:1016–101
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandefur RL. 2014. Accessing justice in the contemporary USA: findings from the community needs and services study Work. Pap Am. Bar Found Chicago, IL: http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/sandefur_accessing_justice_in_the_contemporary_usa._aug._2014.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Sartori G. 1970. Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 64:41033–53
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Schuck P. 1986. Agent Orange on Trial Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harvard Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Staszak SL. 2015. No Day in Court: Access to Justice and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Talesh S. 2009. The privatization of public rights: how manufacturers construct the meaning of consumer law. Law Soc. Rev. 43:3527–62
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Talesh S. 2015. Rule-intermediaries in action: how state and business stakeholders influence the meaning of consumer rights in regulatory governance arrangements. Law Policy 37:1–31
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Vogel SK. 1996. Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial Countries Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Windsor v. United States 570 U.S. 744 2013.
  74. Witt JF. 2007. Bureaucratic legalism, American style: private bureaucratic legalism and the governance of the tort system. DePaul Law Rev 5:2261–92
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041620-083410
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041620-083410
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error