This book connects the history and organization of the federal district courts to the emergence of a new technocratic form of justice. The centerpiece of this study is the clash between adjudication — the traditional model of dispute resolution — and the introduction of modern management techniques. From the perspective of the federal trial courts, the authors examine the tension between adjudication and administration. They show dramatic changes in the nature of judicial decision-making and the emergence of new forms of court organization. These changes signal a potential crisis of the judicial system, and Heydebrand and Seron provide insights into its nature and direction, and the immense structural forces underlying the administration of justice in America.

This book connects the history and organization of the federal district courts to the emergence of a new technocratic form of justice. The centerpiece of this study is the clash between adjudication -- the traditional model of dispute resolution -- and the introduction of modern management techniques. From the perspective of the federal trial courts, the authors examine the tension between adjudication and administration. They show dramatic changes in the nature of judicial decision-making and the emergence of new forms of court organization. These changes signal a potential crisis of the judicial system, and Heydebrand and Seron provide insights into its nature and direction, and the immense structural forces underlying the administration of justice in America.

This study explores the socio-legal context of economic rationality in the legal and judicial systems. It examines the meaning and relevance of the concept of efficiency for the operation of courts and court systems,seeking to answer questions such as: in what sense can we say that the adjudicative process works efficiently? What are the relevant criteria for the measurement and assessment of court efficiency? Should the courts try to operate efficiently and to what extent is this viable? What is the proper relationship between 'efficiency' and 'justice' considerations in a judicial proceeding? To answer these questions, a conceptual framework is developed on the basis of empirical studies and surveys carried out mainly in the United States, Western Europe and Latin America. Two basic ideas emerge from it. First, economic rationality has penetrated the legal and judicial systems at all levels and dimensions, from the level of society as a whole to the day-to-day operation of the courts, from the institutional dimension of adjudication to the organizational context of judicial decisions. Far from being an alien value in the judicial process, efficiency has become an inseparable part of the structure of expectations we place on the legal system. Second, economic rationality is not the prevalent value in legal decision-making, as it is subject to all kinds of constraints, local conditions and concrete negotiations with other values and interests.

There are wide racial disparities in virtually every sphere of economic life. African American workers earn less than whites. They are more likely to be denied loans than whites. Minority-owned businesses are less likely to win lucrative bids on state and federal contracts than are white male owned businesses. Black children are more likely than whites to be reported to child protective services for neglect or abuse. There are even huge disparities in downing rates between blacks and whites. What to do about these disparities? There is a fundamental disagreement about the appropriate remedies to these varied indicators of racial inequality. Part of the disagreement stems from differences in public perceptions about the underlying causes of the inequality. But, another form of disagreement relates to the opposition to the remedy of choice during much of the 1970s and 1980s: Affirmative Action. Race conscious remedies -- like affirmative action policies in hiring, college admissions, and business contracting -- suffer from legal and constitutional challenges, compounded by hostility from the majority of Americans. The alternative – race-neutral remedies – attempt to address racial disparities without directly targeting benefits exclusively to racial minority group members. In doing so, race-neutral remedies putatively help minorities without hurting majority group members. The authors of Race Neutrality: Rationalizing Remedies to Racial Inequality make the case that policy analysts should shift from a focus on whether a remedy is race-conscious or not to a focus on the underlying problem that the alternative remedies is attempting to resolve. This type of rethinking of the problem of racial inequality will reveal that sometimes race-neutral remedies hold great promise in reducing disparities. Often, however, race-neutral remedies fail to do what they are intended to do. The authors challenge the reader to think about why race-neutral remedies—while desireable on their face—might fail to resolve protracted and persistent patterns of racial inequality in market and non-market contexts.

This volume in ABC-CLIO's About Federal Government set looks at the history and daily operations of the federal judiciary, from district courts, to courts of appeal, to the Supreme Court. The Judicial Branch of Federal Government: People, Process, and Politics shows how the federal courts act as interpreters of the law, definers of rules, and shapers of policy, covering the judiciary throughout U.S. history and as it functions today. In one concise yet comprehensive resource, The Judicial Branch of Federal Government describes the constitutionally ascribed roles and structures of the courts. It looks at the men and women who serve on the federal bench (who they are and how they are appointed), as well as the fascinating relationship of the federal courts with the legislative and executive branches and with the 50 state court systems.

Blending both the theoretical and applied aspects of contemporary issues in court management, this reference/text offers in-depth coverage of all major topics and developments in judicial systems administration. It is suitable for use in the classroom or for self-study.;Providing the background material to clarify even the most technical management application, this book: presents the history and theory of the court management movement; examines the separation of powers doctrine, and its relationship to judicial independence; discusses the latest developments in court reform, the American Bar Association standards, alternative dispute resolution techniques and caseflow considerations; analyzes unified court budgeting and revenue generation by judicial systems; describes personnel administration, training and jury management; and elucidates court performance evaluation, planning approaches, the use of cameras in the courtroom and audio-visual applications.

This is the first book-length study of a federal district court to analyze the revolutionary changes in its mission, structure, policies, and procedures over the past four decades. As Steven Harmon Wilson chronicles the court's attempts to keep pace with an expanding, diversifying caseload, he situates those efforts within the social, cultural, and political expectations that have prompted the increase in judicial seats from four in 1955 to the current nineteen. Federal judges have progressed from being simply referees of legal disputes to managers of expanding courts, dockets, and staffs, says Wilson. The Southern District of Texas offers an especially instructive model by which to study this transformation. Not only does it contain a varied population of Hispanics, African Americans, and whites, but its jurisdiction includes an international border and some of the busiest seaports in the United States. Wilson identifies three areas of judicial management in which the shift has most clearly manifested itself. Through docket and case management judges have attempted to rationalize the flow of work through the litigation process. Lastly, and most controversially, judges have sought to bring "constitutionally flawed" institutions into compliance through "structural reform" rulings in areas such as housing, education, employment, and voting. Wilson draws on sources ranging from judicial biography and oral-history interviews to case files, published opinions, and administrative memoranda. Blending legal history with social science, this important new study ponders the changing meaning of federal judgeship as it shows how judicial management has both helped and hindered the resolution of legal conflicts and the protection of civil rights.