front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1981
The Supreme Court Review, 1981
Edited by Philip B. Kurland
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1982

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1982
The Supreme Court Review, 1982
Edited by Philip B. Kurland
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1983

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1983
The Supreme Court Review, 1983
Edited by Philip B. Kurland
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1984

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1985
The Supreme Court Review, 1985
Edited by Philip B. Kurland
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1986

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1986
The Supreme Court Review, 1986
Edited by Philip B. Kurland, Gerhard Casper, and Dennis J. Hutchinson
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1987

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1987
The Supreme Court Review, 1987
Edited by Philip B. Kurland, Gerhard Casper, and Dennis J. Hutchinson
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1988

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1988
The Supreme Court Review, 1988
Edited by Philip B. Kurland, Gerhard Casper, and Dennis J. Hutchinson
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1989

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1989
The Supreme Court Review, 1989
Edited by Philip B. Kurland, Gerhard Casper, and Dennis J. Hutchinson
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1990

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1990
The Supreme Court Review, 1990
Edited by Gerhard Casper and Dennis J. Hutchinson
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1991

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1991
The Supreme Court Review, 1991
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1992

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1992
The Supreme Court Review, 1992
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1993
Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1993
The Supreme Court Review, 1993
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1994
Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1994
The Supreme Court Review, 1994
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1995
Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1995
The Supreme Court Review, 1995
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1996

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1996
The Supreme Court Review, 1996
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1997

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1997
The Supreme Court Review, 1997
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1998

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1998
The Supreme Court Review, 1998
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 1999

front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 1999
The Supreme Court Review, 1999
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2000
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.


[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2000
The Supreme Court Review, 2000
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2001
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

The Supreme Court Review keeps you at the forefront of the Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion. Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their contributions to each volume.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2001
The Supreme Court Review, 2001
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2002
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2002
The Supreme Court Review, 2002
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2003
Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty, the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2003
The Supreme Court Review, 2003
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2004
The Supreme Court Review receives accolades for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and implications addressed under Court consideration.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2004
The Supreme Court Review, 2004
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2005
Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the implications of court decisions.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2005
The Supreme Court Review, 2005
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2006
For forty-five years The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes and discuss the implications of court decisions.  
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2006
The Supreme Court Review, 2006
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2007
For forty-five years The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2007
The Supreme Court Review, 2007
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2008
For forty-five years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2008
The Supreme Court Review, 2008
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2009

For forty-eight years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

[more]
logo for University of Chicago Press Journals
The Supreme Court Review, 2009
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2010
For forty-nine years, the Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, one that strives to keep on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2011
The Supreme Court Review, 2011
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2012
For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2012
The Supreme Court Review, 2012
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2013
For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First- and Fourth-Amendment cases.
 

[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2013
The Supreme Court Review, 2013
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2014
For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2014
The Supreme Court Review, 2014
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2015
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. An in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, The Supreme Court Review keeps at the forefront of the reforms and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2015
The Supreme Court Review, 2015
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2016
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2016
The Supreme Court Review, 2016
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2017
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2017
The Supreme Court Review, 2017
Edited by Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, and Geoffrey R. Stone
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2018
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2018
The Supreme Court Review, 2018
Edited by David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, and Justin Driver
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2019
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 
This year’s volume features prominent scholars assessing major legal events, including:
 
Mark Tushnet on President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”
Kate Andrias on Union Fees in the Public Sector
Cass R. Sunstein on Chevron without Chevron
Tracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and Unauthorized Drivers
Frederick Schauer on Precedent
Pamela Karlan on Gay Equality and Racial Equality
Randall Kennedy on Palmer v. Thompson
Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter Suppression
Melissa Murray on Masterpiece Cakeshop
Vikram David Amar on Commandeering
Laura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and Originalism
Evan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability 
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2019
The Supreme Court Review, 2019
Edited by David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, and Justin Driver
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2020
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 
This year’s volume features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:
 
Gillian E. Metzger on The Roberts Court's Administrative Law
Paul Butler on Peremptory Strikes in Mississippi v. Flowers
Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos on Partisan Gerrymandering
Kent Greenfield on Hate Speech
Jennifer M. Chacon on Department of Commerce v. New York
Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe on Establishment Clause Appeasement
William Baude on Precedent and Originalism
Linda Greenhouse on The Supreme Court’s Challenge to Civil Society
James T. Kloppenberg on James Madison
 
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2020
The Supreme Court Review, 2020
Edited by David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, and Justin Driver
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2021

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

This year’s volume features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:

Cristina M. Rodríguez on the Political Significance of Law
Martha Minow on Little Sisters of the Poor
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule on the Unitary Executive
Cary Franklin on Living Textualism
David A. Strauss on Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics of Discrimination
Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash on the Executive’s Privileges and Immunities
Reva B. Siegel on Abortion Restrictions
Maggie Blackhawk on McGirt v. Oklahoma
Richard J. Lazarus on Advocacy History

[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2021
The Supreme Court Review, 2021
Edited by David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, Justin Driver, and William Baude
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2022
The latest volume in the Supreme Court Review series.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, analyzing the origins, reforms, and modern interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists. 
[more]
front cover of The Supreme Court Review, 2022
The Supreme Court Review, 2022
Edited by David A. Strauss, Geoffrey R. Stone, Justin Driver, and William Baude
University of Chicago Press Journals, 2023
An annual peer-reviewed law journal covering the legal implications of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, analyzing the origins, reforms, and modern interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
[more]
front cover of A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other
A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other
The Deepening Divide Between the Justices and the People
Kevin J. McMahon
University of Chicago Press, 2024

A data-rich examination of the US Supreme Court's unprecedented detachment from the democratic processes that buttress its legitimacy.

Today’s Supreme Court is unlike any other in American history. This is not just because of its jurisprudence but also because the current Court has a tenuous relationship with the democratic processes that help establish its authority. Historically, this “democracy gap” was not nearly as severe as it is today. Simply put, past Supreme Courts were constructed in a fashion far more in line with the promise of democracy—that the people decide and the majority rules.

Drawing on historical and contemporary data alongside a deep knowledge of court battles during presidencies ranging from FDR to Donald Trump, Kevin J. McMahon charts the developments that brought us here. McMahon offers insight into the altered politics of nominating and confirming justices, the shifting pool of Supreme Court hopefuls, and the increased salience of the Court in elections. A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other is an eye-opening account of today’s Court within the context of US history and the broader structure of contemporary politics.

[more]
front cover of Supreme Courts Under Nazi Occupation
Supreme Courts Under Nazi Occupation
Derk Venema
Amsterdam University Press, 2023
This is the first extensive treatment of leading judicial institutions under Nazi rule in WWII. It focusses on all democratic countries under German occupation, and provides the details for answering questions like: how can law serve as an instrument of defence against an oppressive regime? Are the courts always the guardians of democracy and rule of law? What role was there for international law? How did the courts deal with dismissals, new appointees, new courts, forced German ordinances versus national law? How did judges justify their actions, help citizens, appease the enemy, protest against injustice? Experts from all democracies that were occupied by the Nazis paint vivid pictures of oppression, collaboration, and resistance. The results are interpreted in a socio-legal framework introducing the concept of ‘moral hygiene’ to explain the clash between normative and descriptive approaches in public opinion and scholarship concerning officials’ behaviour in war-time.
[more]
front cover of Supreme Injustice
Supreme Injustice
Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court
Paul Finkelman
Harvard University Press, 2018

The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War—Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story—upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling. These opinions cast a shadow over the Court and the legacies of these men, but historians have rarely delved deeply into the personal and political ideas and motivations they held. In Supreme Injustice, the distinguished legal historian Paul Finkelman establishes an authoritative account of each justice’s proslavery position, the reasoning behind his opposition to black freedom, and the incentives created by circumstances in his private life.

Finkelman uses census data and other sources to reveal that Justice Marshall aggressively bought and sold slaves throughout his lifetime—a fact that biographers have ignored. Justice Story never owned slaves and condemned slavery while riding circuit, and yet on the high court he remained silent on slave trade cases and ruled against blacks who sued for freedom. Although Justice Taney freed many of his own slaves, he zealously and consistently opposed black freedom, arguing in Dred Scott that free blacks had no Constitutional rights and that slave owners could move slaves into the Western territories. Finkelman situates this infamous holding within a solid record of support for slavery and hostility to free blacks.

Supreme Injustice boldly documents the entanglements that alienated three major justices from America’s founding ideals and embedded racism ever deeper in American civic life.

[more]
front cover of Surrogate Motherhood
Surrogate Motherhood
The Legal and Human Issues, Expanded Edition
Martha A. Field
Harvard University Press, 1990

With an Expanded Appendix on the Current Legal Status of Surrogacy Arrangements

A practice known since Biblical times, surrogate motherhood has only recently leaped to prominence as a way of providing babies for childless couples—and leaped to notoriety through the dramatic case of Baby M. Contract surrogacy is officially little more than ten years old, but by 1986 five hundred babies had been born to mothers who gave them up to sperm donor fathers for a fee, and the practice is growing rapidly. Martha Field examines the myriad legal complexities that today enmesh surrogate motherhood, and also looks beyond existing legal rules to ask what society wants from surrogacy.

A man’s desire to be a “biological” parent even when his wife is infertile—the father’s wife usually adopts the child—has led to this new kind of family, and modern technology could further extend surrogacy’s appeal by making gestational surrogates available to couples who provide both egg and sperm. But is surrogacy a form of babyselling? Is the practice a private matter covered by contract law, or does adoption law govern? Is it good or bad social and public policy to leave surrogacy unregulated? Should the law allow, encourage, discourage, or prohibit surrogate motherhood? Ultimately the answers will depend on what the American public wants.

In the difficult process of sorting out such vexing questions, Martha Field has written a landmark book. Showing that the problem is rather too much applicable law than too little, she discusses contract law and constitutional law, custody and adoption law, and the rights of biological fathers as well as the laws governing sperm donation. Competing values are involved all along the legal and social spectrum. Field suggests that a federal prohibition would be most effective if banning surrogacy is the aim, but federal prohibition might not be chosen for a variety of reasons: a preference for regulating surrogacy instead of driving it underground; a preference for allowing regulation and variation by state; or a respect for the interests of people who want to enter surrogacy arrangements. Since the law can support a wide variety of positions, Field offers one that seems best to reconcile the competing values at stake. Whether or not paid surrogacy is made illegal, she suggests that a surrogate mother retain the option of abiding by or canceling the contract up to the time she freely gives the child to the adopting couple. And if she cancels the contract, she should be entitled to custody without having to prove in court that she would be a better parent than the father.

[more]
front cover of Surveillance, Privacy, and the Law
Surveillance, Privacy, and the Law
Employee Drug Testing and the Politics of Social Control
John Gilliom
University of Michigan Press, 1996
Employee drug testing is an invasive and controversial new social control policy that burst into the American work place during the war on drugs of the 1980s. Workers, judges, and politicians divided over whether it was an unnecessary and unconstitutional program of surveillance or an effective and appropriate new weapon in the anti-drug arsenal. When the dust had settled, the new technique was widely used and had been strongly approved by the United States Supreme Court. This raises the fundamental question: Why was the momentum behind testing so strong and the opposition to testing so ineffective?
Drawing on theories of ideological hegemony and legal mobilization, John Gilliom begins the search for answers with an examination of how the imagery of a national drug crisis served as the legitimating context for the introduction of testing. Surveillance, Privacy, and the Law then moves beyond the specific history of testing and frames the new policy within a broader transformation of social control policy seen by students of political economy, society, and culture. The book cites survey research among skilled workers and analyzes court opinions to highlight the sharply polarized opinions in the workplaces and courthouses of America. Although federal court decisions show massive and impassioned disagreement among judges, the new conservative Supreme Court comes down squarely behind testing. Its ruling embraces surveillance technology, rejects arguments against testing, and undermines future opposition to policies of general surveillance.
Surveillance, Privacy, and the Law portrays the apparent triumph of testing policies as a victory for the conservative law-and-order movement and a stark loss for the values of privacy and autonomy. As one episode in a broader move toward a surveillance society, the battle over employee drug testing raises disturbing questions about future struggles over revolutionary new means of surveillance and control.
John Gilliom is Professor of Political Science, Ohio University.
[more]
front cover of The Sympathetic State
The Sympathetic State
Disaster Relief and the Origins of the American Welfare State
Michele Landis Dauber
University of Chicago Press, 2012
Even as unemployment rates soared during the Great Depression, FDR’s relief and social security programs faced attacks in Congress and the courts on the legitimacy of federal aid to the growing population of poor. In response, New Dealers pointed to a long tradition—dating back to 1790 and now largely forgotten—of federal aid to victims of disaster. In The Sympathetic State, Michele Landis Dauber recovers this crucial aspect of American history, tracing the roots of the modern American welfare state beyond the New Deal and the Progressive Era back to the earliest days of the republic when relief was forthcoming for the victims of wars, fires, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
 
Drawing on a variety of materials, including newspapers, legal briefs, political speeches, the art and literature of the time, and letters from thousands of ordinary Americans, Dauber shows that while this long history of government disaster relief has faded from our memory today, it was extremely well known to advocates for an expanded role for the national government in the 1930s, including the Social Security Act. Making this connection required framing the Great Depression as a disaster afflicting citizens though no fault of their own. Dauber argues that the disaster paradigm, though successful in defending the New Deal, would ultimately come back to haunt advocates for social welfare. By not making a more radical case for relief, proponents of the New Deal helped create the weak, uniquely American welfare state we have today—one torn between the desire to come to the aid of those suffering and the deeply rooted suspicion that those in need are responsible for their own deprivation.
 
Contrary to conventional thought, the history of federal disaster relief is one of remarkable consistency, despite significant political and ideological change. Dauber’s pathbreaking and highly readable book uncovers the historical origins of the modern American welfare state.
[more]
front cover of Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration
Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration
Breakdown and Repair
W. Michael Reisman
Duke University Press, 1992
In a world where nations are increasingly interdependent and where their problems--whether environmental, economic, or military--have a global dimension, the resolution of international disputes has become critically important. In Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration, W. Michael Reisman, one of America's foremost scholars and practitioners of international law, examines the controls that govern arbitration—a method of alternative, private, and relatively unsupervised dispute resolution—and shows how these controls have broken down.
Reisman considers three major forms of international arbitration: in the International Court; under the auspices of the World Bank; and under the New York Convention of 1958. He discusses the unique structures of control in each situation as well as the stresses they have sustained. Drawing on extensive research and his own experience as a participant in the resolution of some of the disputes discussed, Reisman analyzes recent key decisions, including: Australia and New Zealand's attempt to stop France's nuclear testing in Muroroa; AMCO vs. Republic of Indonesia, concerning the construction of a large tourist hotel in Asia; and numerous others.
Reisman explores the implications of the breakdown of control systems and recommends methods of repair and reconstruction for each mode of arbitration. As a crucial perspective and an invaluable guide, this work will benefit both scholars and practitioners of international dispute resolution.
[more]

Send via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter