No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Understanding the Litigation Priorities of Legal Impact Organizations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 September 2023
Abstract
What influences the litigation agendas of LGBTQ legal impact organizations in the United States? These organizations are at the forefront of bringing rights claims before the courts, but capacity and resource limitations mean that they cannot litigate every issue important to their constituency. Drawing on dozens of interviews with movement actors and organizational documents, I find that the formation of litigation agendas in LGBTQ legal impact organizations resembles the dynamic models of policy agenda setting, with cause lawyers influenced by a confluence of commonly reoccurring elements of unequal influence. However, one element stood out in influencing litigation choices, above even donor and funding concerns: lawyer autonomy and individual preferences. My findings suggest greater agency of individual cause lawyers and contribute to our understanding of the relationship between legal organizations and social movements.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation
Footnotes
The article’s clarity and quality have been substantially improved by the feedback of anonymous reviewers at Law & Social Inquiry. Participants and discussants in the December 2021 American Political Science Association Law & Courts virtual brownbag and the Rights Based Legal Mobilizations panel at the 2022 Law and Society Annual Conference contributed important suggestions that clarified the manuscript’s contributions and strengthened its arguments. The earliest version of this project was supported and improved by scholars and mentors Julie Novkov, Ellen Anderson, and Matthew Ingram. This project was possible in part thanks to funding from the University at Albany Dissertation Research Award and the University at Albany Benevolent Association Grant. The research received International Review Board approval (IRB no. 15X190-02).
References
REFERENCES
Albiston, Catherine. “The Dark Side of Litigation as a Social Movement Strategy.” Iowa Law Review Bulletin 96 (2011): 61–77.Google Scholar
Albiston, Catherine, and Beth Nielsen, Laura. “Funding the Cause: How Public Interest Law Organizations Fund Their Activities and Why It Matters for Social Change.” Law & Social Inquiry 39, no. 1 (2014): 62–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Victoria. “Environmental Constraints and Organizational Strategies: Complexity, Conflict, and Coping in the Nonprofit Sector.” In Private Action and the Public Good, edited by Walter, W. Powell and Elisabeth, S. Clemens, 272–90. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Andersen, Ellen Ann. Out of the Closets & into the Courts: Legal Opportunity Structure and Gay Rights Litigation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Andrews, Kenneth T., and Jowers, Kay. “Lawyers and Embedded Legal Activity in the Southern Civil Rights Movement.” Law & Policy 40, no. 1 (2018): 10–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkles, Gabriel, Gehi, Pooja, and Redfield, Elana. “The Role of Lawyers in Trans Liberation: Building a Transformative Movement for Social Change.” Seattle Journal for Social Justice 8, no. 2 (2010): 579–641.Google Scholar
Barclay, Scott, and Chomsky, Daniel. “How Do Cause Lawyers Decide When and Where to Litigate on Behalf of Their Cause?” Law & Society Review 48, no. 3 (2014): 595–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Derrick A. Jr. “Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interests in School Desegregation Litigation.” Yale Law Journal 85, no. 4 (1976): 470–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Boutcher, Steven A. “Making Lemonade: Turning Adverse Decisions into Opportunities for Mobilization.” Amici 13 (2005): 8–13.Google Scholar
Buseck, Gary. “Education and Mission (Email).” Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Records. (MS 1961) box 29, folder 1. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 2000.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Leonore. “Getting Queer Priorities Straight: How Direct Legal Services Can Democratize Issue Prioritization in the LGBT Rights Movement.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law & Social Change 17, no. 2 (2014): 107–36.Google Scholar
Carver, Miriam. “The Policy Governance Model.” PolicyGovernance. Com. April 4, 2016. http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Kevin. “The Sodomy Roundtable.” In Love Unites Us: Winning the Freedom to Marry in America, edited by Cathcart, Kevin and Gabel-Brett, Leslie, 51–55. New York: New Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Kevin, and Gabel-Brett, Leslie, eds. Love Unites Us: Winning the Freedom to Marry in America. New York: New Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Chen, Alan K., and Cummings, Scott. Public Interest Lawyering: A Contemporary Perspective. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2012.Google Scholar
Cohen, Michael D., March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1972): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Michael D., March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. “‘A Garbage Can Model’ at Forty: A Solution that Still Attracts Problems.” In The Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice: Looking Forward at Forty, edited by Lomi, Alessandro and Richard Harrison, J., 36: 19–30. Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, David. Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make Constitutional Law. New York: Basic Books, 2016.Google Scholar
Craig, Amelia. “Report Regarding Other Legal Organizations’ Process for Determining What Cases to Bring and Legal Strategies within Cases.” (MS 1961) box 26, folder 23. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1995.Google Scholar
Cummings, Scott, and NeJaime, Douglas. “Lawyering for Marriage Equality.” UCLA Law Review 57, no. 5 (2010): 1235–1331.Google Scholar
Decker, Jefferson. The Other Rights Revolution: Conservative Lawyers and the Remaking of American Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Dishonorable Passions: Sodomy Laws in America, 1861-2003. New York: Penguin, 2008.Google Scholar
Ettelbrick, Paula. “From the Legal Director: Paula L. Ettelbrick.” The Lambda Update, Summer 1990. Periodical Collection, newsletters, L folder. GLBT Historical Society Archives and Museum, 1990.Google Scholar
Faderman, Lillian. The Gay Revolution: The Story of the Struggle. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2015.Google Scholar
Frank, Nathaniel. Awakening: How Gays and Lesbians Brought Marriage Equality to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
GLAD. “Civil Rights Project and AIDS Law Project Litigation Criteria.” (MS 1961) box 26, folder 23. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1995.Google Scholar
GLAD. “Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes(a).” Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Records. (MS 1961) box 29, folder 1. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1998a.Google Scholar
GLAD. “Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes(b).” Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Records. (MS 1961) box 5, folder 5. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1998b.Google Scholar
GLAD Staff. “GLAD Board of Directors: An Introduction.” Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Records. (MS 1961) box 5, folder 2. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1991.Google Scholar
Heinz, John P., Southworth, Ann, and Paik, Anthony. “Lawyers for Conservative Causes: Clients, Ideology, and Social Distance.” Law & Society Review 37, no. 1 (2003): 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilbink, Thomas. “You Know the Type: Categories of Cause Lawyering.” Law & Social Inquiry 29, no. 3 (2004): 657–98.Google Scholar
Hindman, Matthew Dean. Political Advocacy and Its Interested Citizens: Neoliberalism, Postpluralism, and LGBT Organizations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda. Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda, and Wilson, Joshua C.. Separate but Faithful: The Christian Right’s Radical Struggle to Transform Law & Legal Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
INCITE! The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. Reprint edition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books, 2017.Google Scholar
Johnson, Stefan. “Memorandum to Jon Davidson Regarding Help Desk Statistics for 2013.” January 7, 2014. On file with author.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael. “How Brown Changed Race Relations: The Backlash Thesis.” Journal of American History 81, no. 1 (1994): 81–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komesar, Neil K., and Weisbrod, Burton. “The Public Interest Law Firm: A Behavioral Analysis.” In Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis, edited by Weisbrod, Burton Allen, Handler, Joel F., and Komesar, Neil K., 80–101. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosbie, Jeffrey. “Donor Preferences and the Crisis in Public Interest Law.” Santa Clara Law Review 57, no. 1 (2017): 43–95.Google Scholar
Legal, Lambda. “A Description of the Organization and Its Work.” Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., Lambda Newsletter Box. LGBT Community Center National History Archive, New York City, 1990
Google Scholar
Legal, Lambda. “Answers to Common Questions about Our Work.” Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. Lambda Newsletter Box. LGBT Community Center National History Archive, New York City, 1993.Google Scholar
Leachman, Gwendolyn. “From Protest to Perry: How Litigation Shaped the LGBT Movement’s Agenda.” UC Davis Law Review 47, no. 5 (2014): 1667–1751.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Sandra. “To Lead with Law: Reassessing the Influence of Legal Advocacy Organizations in Social Movements.” In Cause Lawyers and Social Movements, edited by Sarat, Austin and Stuart, A. Scheingold, 145–58. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobel, Orly. “The Paradox of Extralegal Activism: Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politics.” Harvard Law Review 120, no. 4 (2007): 937–88.Google Scholar
Mananzala, Rickke, and Spade, Dean. “The Nonprofit Industrial Complex and Trans Resistance.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 5, no. 1 (2008): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Doug. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael, and Silverstein, Helena. “Rethinking Law’s ‘Allurements’: A Relational Analysis of Social Movement Lawyers in the United States.” In Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities, edited by Sarat, Austin and Stuart, A. Scheingold, 261–92. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N.. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 6 (1977): 1212–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, Joseph. The Courts, the Ballot Box, and Gay Rights: How Our Governing Institutions Shape the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2016.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “The Causes of Cause Lawyering: Toward an Understanding of the Motivation and Commitment of Social Justice Lawyer.” In Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities, edited by Sarat, Austin and Stuart, A. Scheingold, 31–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas. “Winning through Losing.” Iowa Law Review 96, no. 3 (2011): 941–1012.Google Scholar
Pierceson, Jason. Before Bostock: The Accidental LGBTQ Precedent of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. “The Lawyer as a Social Engineer.” Journal of Public Law 3 (1954): 292–303.Google Scholar
Rhode, Deborah L. “Public Interest Law: The Movement at Midlife.” Stanford Law Review 60, no. 6 (2008): 2027–84.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, William B. “Divided We Litigate: Addressing Disputes among Group Members and Lawyers in Civil Rights Campaigns.” Yale Law Journal 106, no. 6 (1997): 1623–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheingold, Stuart A., and Sarat, Austin. Something to Believe In: Politics, Professionalism, and Cause Lawyering. Stanford, CA: Stanford Law and Politics, 2004.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Southworth, Ann. Lawyers of the Right: Professionalizing the Conservative Coalition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southworth, Ann. “Lawyers and the Conservative Counterrevolution.” Law & Social Inquiry 43, no. 4 (2018): 1698–1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spade, Dean, and Dector, Hope. How Do Rich People Control Our Movement? Vol. 2. Queer Dreams and Nonprofit Blues: Understanding the Nonprofit Industrial Complex. The Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School, 2013. https://sfonline.barnard.edu/dean-spade-hope-dector-queer-dreams-and-nonprofit-blues-understanding-the-npic/.Google Scholar
Staggenborg, Suzanne. “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement.” American Sociological Review 53, no. 4 (1988): 585–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Amy. Gay Rights at the Ballot Box. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarn, Waikeung. “Political Transition and the Rise of Cause Lawyering: The Case of Hong Kong.” Law & Social Inquiry 35, no. 3 (2010): 663–87.Google Scholar
Trowbridge, David L. “Engaging Hearts and Minds: How and Why Legal Organizations Use Public Education.” Law & Social Inquiry 44, no. 4 (2019): 1196–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowbridge, David L. “Art, Not a Science: How Legal Impact Organizations Identify Community Need.” Law & Policy 44, no. 2 (2022): 144–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turley, Donna. “Re: Strategic Planning Committee (Email).” (Yale MS 1961) box 29, folder 1. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 1998.Google Scholar
Turley, Donna. “Re: Education and Mission (Email).” Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Records. (MS 1961) box 29, folder 1. Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, 2000.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark V. The NAACP’s Legal Strategy against Segregated Education, 1925-1950. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaid, Urvashi. Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation. New York: Anchor Books, 1995.Google Scholar
Vanhala, Lisa. “Legal Opportunity Structures and the Paradox of Legal Mobilization by the Environmental Movement in the UK.” Law & Society Review 46, no. 3 (2012): 523–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhala, Lisa. “Is Legal Mobilization for the Birds? Legal Opportunity Structures and Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations in the United Kingdom, France, Finland, and Italy.” Comparative Political Studies 51, no. 3 (2018): 380–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, James Q. Political Organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Zeitz, Josh. “The Making of the Marriage Equality Revolution.” POLITICO Magazine. April 28, 2015. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/gay-marriage-revolution-evan-wolfson-117412/.Google Scholar
CASES CITED
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).Google Scholar
Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2014).Google Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).Google Scholar