FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W856389698> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W856389698 abstract "Modern civil rights injunctive practice reached unambiguous middle age last year, fifty years after the Supreme Court's second opinion in Brown v. Board of Education. The conventional wisdom that has developed declares this history essentially closed; institutional reform litigation is, as many see it, something that is over and done with. I argue in this article that this conventional wisdom is false. Presenting a longitudinal account of court order litigation involving jails and prisons, and using both systematic data and more qualitative evidence, I establish that at least as to correctional court orders, the claim of 1980s and 1990s decline in the reach of court order regulation is simply wrong. In both jails and prisons, as of the mid-1990s, new court orders continued to be entered all over the country, and old orders continued to exert regulatory effect. Rather than a 1980s to 1990s decline, we see a long-standing plateau. Thus the conventional story of the demise of public law injunctions in the 1980s misses the continuing strength of injunctive practice during that time. In 1996, however, Congress intervened. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) made old correctional court orders harder for plaintiffs' counsel to sustain and new ones harder to obtain. The PLRA had a very notable constrictive effect on correctional court order practice. Even so, just as before, prison and jail court orders continue to be sought and entered; even now, ten years after passage of the PLRA, the civil rights injunction is more alive even in the prison and jail setting than the conventional wisdom recognizes. And by implication, in arenas in which no such congressional intervention has occurred, one might expect to see more continuity between court order practice now and in the 1980s. Other revisionists have similarly suggested that structural reform litigation flourished in the 1990s and (putting the PLRA to one side) continues to thrive today. They have gone further, however, and argued that injunctive litigation remains very similar to that in the 1970s. As with the conventional wisdom, this revisionist story too is incorrect, at least for correctional court orders. Although, in prison and jail court orders, the 1980s and early 1990s did not see a decline in the incidence of regulation via order, there was in that time a transformation in civil rights injunctive practice from a kitchen sink model to something much more precise. I demonstrate this shift in the arena of prison orders, and suggest that it occurred less as a result of a top-down Supreme Court doctrinal dictate than of more diffuse forces, chief among them increasing skepticism about claims of causation more generally; the increasing prevalence of (pro bono) big firm lawyers in the cases; and the salience as models of a handful of cases in which the litigation was extraordinarily comprehensive. In sum, I argue that contrary to prior accounts, civil rights injunctive practice did not die over the 1980s and 1990s, but was rather transformed. In its new form, however, injunctive practice flourished. In 1996, the PLRA shocked this stable system, causing a significant reduction in the volume of both new and old court order regulation in correctional settings. But there have not been any further notable shifts in injunctive practice's nature. At the end of the day, even in jail and prison litigation, the civil rights injunction remains stronger than conventional wisdom would have it. I conclude with some policy implications. In particular, to some extent, progressive scholars and policymakers have thought it relatively low-cost to allow conservatives to attack injunctive litigation. After all, if something is already dead, why expend any political capital defending it? This is a point that has a good deal of relevance right now, as Congress considers the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act proposed to implement restrictions similar to the PLRA's in other topical areas of governmental injunctive litigation. If this article is correct about prison and jail orders, the stakes of the proposed reform are probably extremely high; progressives should think long and hard before they allow this statute or others like it to pass without a strenuous fight." @default.
• W856389698 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W856389698 creator A5053418903 @default.
• W856389698 date "2005-12-03" @default.
• W856389698 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W856389698 title "Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders" @default.
• W856389698 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W856389698 type Work @default.
• W856389698 sameAs 856389698 @default.
• W856389698 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W856389698 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W856389698 hasAuthorship W856389698A5053418903 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C2777720223 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C66487177 @default.
• W856389698 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C17744445 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C199539241 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C2777720223 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C2778272461 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C2780656516 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C66487177 @default.
• W856389698 hasConceptScore W856389698C97460637 @default.
• W856389698 hasLocation W8563896981 @default.
• W856389698 hasOpenAccess W856389698 @default.
• W856389698 hasPrimaryLocation W8563896981 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W1555940954 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2094321584 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2305374421 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2319353032 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2961138080 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2980747223 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W2993256919 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W301539970 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3022948993 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3083651634 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3122828676 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3125444214 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3126147208 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3146650419 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W328045463 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W332618262 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W622180097 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W81663359 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W192195629 @default.
• W856389698 hasRelatedWork W3124460799 @default.
• W856389698 isParatext "false" @default.
• W856389698 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W856389698 magId "856389698" @default.
• W856389698 workType "article" @default.