Framing Change: Cause Lawyering, Constitutional Decisions, and Social Change

Ziegler, Mary

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1646395

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2) had the religious counselor been offered an exemption. Future research can address whether, why, and how these varied judicial framings translate and gain legitimacy outside of the courtroom (Ziegler 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars have also analyzed processes within the courts that point to a myriad of factors that can influence judicial decisions including cause lawyers and the solicitor general (McGuire 1998;Bailey, Kamoie, and Maltzman 2005;Barclay and Fisher 2006;Boutcher 2013;Cummings and Sandefur 2013) judges' political ideology (see Segal and Spaeth 2002;Pacelle, Curry, and Marshall 2011;Harris and Sen 2019), and legal precedent (Hansford and Spriggs 2006). Scholars have also analyzed how judges advance their own frames and discourses (Ziegler 2010;McCammon et al 2018;Murray 2019;Akbari & Vogler 2021;McCammon and Beeson-Lynch 2021).…”

Section: Religious Freedom In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Religious Exemption, LGBT Rights, and the Social Construction of Harm and Freedom

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine how courts make decisions in religious exemption cases that implicate LGBT rights in a wide range of contexts including education, employment, and medical care. Through an in-depth qualitative analysis of 50 federal cases decided between 1990 and 2020, we demonstrate a shift in how anti-LGBT sentiment is expressed by parties bringing religion-based claims—from a broad condemnation of LGBT identity to a narrow condemnation of same-sex marriage—and find that courts are more likely to rule in favor of the latter. We show how courts construct competing understandings of harm and religious freedom depending on the context of the case and whether the setting is deemed public or private. Our analyses shed light on the shifting and competing meanings about religion, sexuality, and public life in the United States.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Religious Freedom In Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Exemption, LGBT Rights, and the Social Construction of Harm and Freedom

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The issue of representation connects the idea of majoritarian courts with the concept of movement lawyering. By asserting a productive link between movement activism and legal reform, movement liberalism reimagines the role of law in progressive social change and has thus spotlighted—and invited deeper reflection on—how social movements relate to lawyers (Bachman 2001; Hilbink 2004; Gordon 2005b, 2007; Meili 2006; Alfieri 2007; Ashar 2007; Ziegler 2010), who mediate between movement claims and state power, but in so doing pose familiar risks to movement legitimacy and success (Sarat and Scheingold 2006).…”

Section: The Promise Of Movement Liberalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Movement Turn in Law

Cummings¹

2018

Law soc. inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rise of social movements in US legal scholarship is a current response to an age‐old problem in progressive legal thought: harnessing law for social change while maintaining a distinction between law and politics. This problem erupted in controversy around the civil rights–era concept of legal liberalism defined by activist courts and lawyers pursuing political reform through law. Contemporary legal scholars have responded by building on social science to develop a new concept—movement liberalism—that assigns leadership of transformative change to social movements to preserve conventional roles for courts and lawyers. Movement liberalism aims to achieve the lost promise of progressive reform, while avoiding critiques of legal activism that have divided scholars for a half‐century. Yet rather than resolving the law‐politics problem, movement liberalism reproduces long‐standing debates, carrying forward critical visions of law that it seeks to transcend.

show abstract

“…Strategic framing may help advocates shift the mainstream discourse around an issue (Ziegler 2010), but these shifts may be limited by the political opportunity structures and material and symbolic resources available to do so (Coley 2013). 2 In the field of immigrant rights advocacy, a long list of racialized negative stereotypes dominate the public debate, based in large part on the perceived threat posed by the growing Latino population.…”

Section: They Come Here To Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘They come here to work’: an evaluation of the economic argument in favor of immigrant rights

Gleeson

2015

Citizenship Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates commonly highlight the exploitation that hard-working undocumented immigrants commonly suffer at the hands of employers, the important contribution they make to the US economy, and the fiscal folly of border militarization and enhanced immigration enforcement policies. In this paper, I unpack these economic rationales for expanding immigrant rights, and examine the nuanced ways in which advocates deploy this frame. To do so, I rely on statements issued by publicly present immigrant rights groups in six places: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. I also draw on interviews with immigrant advocates in San Jose, CA and Houston, TX, press releases from two alternative national immigrant rights organizations, and an ethnographic photo-documentation of immigrant rights mobilizations in 2012-2014. Economic rationales, I emphasize, can be found in each of these contexts, but are not mutually exclusive to other justifications, including narratives about civil, human, and family rights for immigrants. However, I argue that an economic framing of immigrant rights nonetheless runs the risk reifying work over conventional understandings of criminality, often relies on a narrow definition of economic worth, and could have negative consequences for coalition building. Advocates commonly highlight the exploitation that hard-working undocumented immigrants commonly suffer at the hands of employers, the important contribution they make to the US economy, and the fiscal folly of border militarization and enhanced immigration enforcement policies. In this paper, I unpack these economic rationales for expanding immigrant rights, and examine the nuanced ways in which advocates deploy this frame. To do so, I rely on statements issued by publicly present immigrant rights groups in six places: California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. I also draw on interviews with immigrant advocates in San Jose, CA and Houston, TX, press releases from two alternative national immigrant rights organizations, and an ethnographic photo-documentation of immigrant rights mobilizations in 2012-2014. Economic rationales, I emphasize, can be found in each of these contexts, but are not mutually exclusive to other justifications, including narratives about civil, human, and family rights for immigrants. However, I argue that an economic framing of immigrant rights nonetheless runs the risk reifying work over conventional understandings of criminality, often relies on a narrow definition of economic worth, and could have negative consequences for coalition building.

show abstract

Framing Change: Cause Lawyering, Constitutional Decisions, and Social Change

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Religious Exemption, LGBT Rights, and the Social Construction of Harm and Freedom

Religious Exemption, LGBT Rights, and the Social Construction of Harm and Freedom

The Social Movement Turn in Law

‘They come here to work’: an evaluation of the economic argument in favor of immigrant rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About