case study for judiciary

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

US Case Law

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Lower courts on the federal level include the US Courts of Appeals, US District Courts, the US Court of Claims, and the US Court of International Trade and US Bankruptcy Courts. Federal courts hear cases involving matters related to the United States Constitution, other federal laws and regulations, and certain matters that involve parties from different states or countries and large sums of money in dispute.

Each state has its own judicial system that includes trial and appellate courts. The highest court in each state is often referred to as the “supreme” court, although there are some exceptions to this rule, for example, the New York Court of Appeals or the Maryland Court of Appeals. State courts generally hear cases involving state constitutional matters, state law and regulations, although state courts may also generally hear cases involving federal laws. States also usually have courts that handle only a specific subset of legal matters, such as family law and probate.

Case law, also known as precedent or common law, is the body of prior judicial decisions that guide judges deciding issues before them. Depending on the relationship between the deciding court and the precedent, case law may be binding or merely persuasive. For example, a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is binding on all federal district courts within the Fifth Circuit, but a court sitting in California (whether a federal or state court) is not strictly bound to follow the Fifth Circuit’s prior decision. Similarly, a decision by one district court in New York is not binding on another district court, but the original court’s reasoning might help guide the second court in reaching its decision.

Decisions by the US Supreme Court are binding on all federal and state courts.

US Federal Courts

Reported opinions from the us federal courts of appeals.

• Federal Reporter, 2nd Series (F.2d) (1924-1993)
• Federal Reporter, 3rd Series (F.3d) (1993-present)

Opinions From the US Federal Courts of Appeals

• US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
• US Court of International Trade
• US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
• Bankruptcy Reporter (B.R.) (1980-present)
• Federal Reporter, 2nd Series (F.2d) (1924-1932)
• Federal Supplement (F. Supp.) (1933-1998)
• Federal Supplement, 2nd Series (F. Supp. 2d) (1998-present)
• Connecticut
• District of Columbia
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia
• US District Court for the District of Guam
• US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
• US District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
• US District Court for the District of the US Virgin Islands
• Emergency Court of Appeals (1942-1974)
• US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
• US Court of Claims (1855-1982)
• US Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (1909-1982)
• US Court of Federal Claims
• US Tax Court

State Courts

Foreign and international courts.

• Australia Courts
• Canada Courts
• Israel Courts
• United Kingdom Courts
• International Courts
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Separation of Powers Supreme Court Cases

The separation of powers is the concept that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches must operate in distinct, clearly defined spheres. The structure of the Constitution reflects the separation of powers. Article I provides power to the legislative branch (Congress), Article II to the executive branch (the President), and Article III to the judicial branch (the Supreme Court).

Closely tied to the separation of powers is the system of checks and balances. To prevent any branch from gaining too much power, the Constitution gives certain powers to each branch that help constrain the powers of the other branches. For example, the President nominates Supreme Court Justices, while the Senate must confirm them. Bills passed by Congress must be presented to the President, who holds the power to veto them. While the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces, Congress holds the power to declare war.

Some of the issues that have implicated separation of powers concerns include the conduct of foreign relations, the appointment and removal of officials, and the delegation of congressional power to administrative agencies. These cases largely focus on conflicts between the legislative and executive branches, although some decisions involving the role of courts also may have separation of powers aspects.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving the separation of powers, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

The Constitution prohibits even modest restrictions on the President's power to remove the head of an agency with a single top officer.

Author: John Roberts

The precedents of Humphrey's Executor and Morrison should not be extended to an independent agency that wields significant executive power and is run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met. Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from presidential control.

In assessing whether a subpoena directed at the President's personal information is related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress, courts must take adequate account of the separation of powers principles at stake, including both the significant legislative interests of Congress and the unique position of the President. (The Court continued to list four non-exclusive considerations in this analysis.)

Author: Anthony Kennedy

The President has the exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign. Congress may not force the President to contradict their prior recognition determination in an official document issued by the Secretary of State.

Author: Stephen Breyer

The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any Senate recess of sufficient length. The Senate is in session when it says that it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.

The President may not be restricted in their ability to remove a principal officer, who is in turn restricted in their ability to remove an inferior officer, when that inferior officer determines the policy and enforces the laws of the United States. Multilevel protection from removal is contrary to Article II's vesting of the executive power in the President.

The President has an array of political and diplomatic means available to enforce international obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing treaty is not among them. The responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress.

Author: Antonin Scalia

Section 109(b) of the Clean Air Act does not permit the EPA Administrator to consider implementation costs in setting NAAQS (national ambient air quality standards). Also, when conferring decision-making authority upon agencies, Congress must lay down an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform.

Author: John Paul Stevens

There is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal an Act of Congress.

Author: Harry Blackmun

Congress did not violate the separation of powers principle by placing the U.S. Sentencing Commission in the judicial branch, requiring federal judges to serve on the Commission and to share their authority with non-judges, or empowering the President to appoint Commission members and to remove them for cause.

Author: William Rehnquist

Congress may place the power to appoint inferior executive officers outside the executive branch. Also, Congress may impose a good cause-type restriction on the President's power to remove an official if this does not interfere with the President's exercise of the executive power and their constitutionally appointed duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Author: Warren Burger

Under the constitutional principle of separation of powers, Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment.

When it was clear that an action by the House of Representatives was not within any of the express constitutional exceptions authorizing one House to act alone, and equally clear that it was an exercise of legislative power, that action was subject to the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I of the Constitution.

Long continued executive practice, of which Congress knows and in which it acquiesces, raises a presumption that presidential action has been taken pursuant to Congress' consent.

Author: Per Curiam

Restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment. However, restrictions on independent expenditures in campaigns, limits on expenditures by candidates from their personal or family resources, and limits on total campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment. Also, any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States” and must be appointed in the manner prescribed by the Appointments Clause.

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.

Author: Robert H. Jackson

When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which the President and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. When the President takes measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.

Author: Harlan Fiske Stone

The essentials of the legislative function are preserved when Congress has specified the basic conditions of fact upon whose existence or occurrence, ascertained from relevant data by a designated administrative agency, it directs that its statutory command shall be effective. It is no objection that the determination of facts and the inferences to be drawn from them in the light of the statutory standards and declaration of policy call for the exercise of judgment, and for the formulation of subsidiary administrative policy within the prescribed statutory framework.

Author: George Sutherland

Congressional legislation that is to be made effective through negotiation and inquiry within the international field must often accord to the President a degree of discretion and freedom from statutory restriction that would not be admissible were domestic affairs alone involved.

The authority of Congress in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies to require their officers to act independently of executive control includes the power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime. (However, purely executive officers are inherently subject to the exclusive and illimitable power of removal by the President.)

Author: Charles Evans Hughes

Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to abdicate, or to transfer to others, the essential legislative functions with which it is vested. Congress may leave to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits, and the determination of facts to which the policy declared by Congress applies, but it must lay down the policies and establish standards. A law was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power when it did not undertake to prescribe rules of conduct to be applied to particular states of fact determined by appropriate administrative procedure but instead authorized the making of codes to prescribe them and set up no standards for that legislative undertaking.

Congress may leave to selected instrumentalities the making of subordinate rules within prescribed limits and the determination of facts to which the policy as declared by the legislature is to apply. However, this should not obscure the limitations of the authority to delegate if the constitutional system is to be maintained. An attempted delegation is plainly void when the power sought to be delegated is legislative power, yet nowhere in the statute has Congress declared or indicated any policy or standard to guide or limit the President when acting under such delegation.

Author: William Howard Taft

The President has the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Complete independence and separation between the three branches are not attained or intended.

Author: Salmon Portland Chase

By providing that an acceptance of a pardon without a disclaimer shall be conclusive evidence of the acts pardoned, but shall be null and void as evidence of rights conferred by it, Congress invaded the powers both of the judicial and of the executive departments of the government.

• Government Agencies
• Powers of Congress
• Role of Courts
• Administrative Law
• Constitutional Law
• International Law
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• Location, Hours & Parking
• Transportation Grants

• Our Mission
• Board and Officers
• Teacher Advisory Council
• The Courthouse
• The Federal Courts
• Photo Gallery Tour
• Schedule a Tour
• Summer Teacher Institute
• The Supreme Court and My Hometown
• Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
• Girl Scout Day at the Courthouse
• Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
• Student Art Competition 2024 Winners
• Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
• Program Photos
• Constitution Day, September 17
• Democracy Badge for Girl Scouts
• Inside Government Badge for Girl Scouts
• Judicial Learning Center Tenth Anniversary
• Stories of the First Amendment Teacher Event
• Alexander Hamilton Exhibit
• Homeschool Educator Institute
• Law Day 2014 Lecture: Freedom Summer
• Freedom Summer Traveling Exhibition
• Student Center Landing Page
• The Role of the Federal Courts
• Organization of the Federal Courts
• How Courts Work
• Landmark Cases
• Educator Center Main Page
• Online Learning Resources
• Comparing State and Federal Courts
• Law Day Lessons and Activities
• The Power of Judicial Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution describes the powers and duties of the judicial branch.  Nowhere does it mention the power of the courts to review actions of the other two branches, and possibly declare these actions unconstitutional.  This power, called Judicial Review , was established by the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison , 1803.

“ It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.  So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty .” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803  

• Facts about Judicial Review
• Possible Subjects of Judicial Review
• No law or action can contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
• The court can only review a law that is brought before it through a law suit.
• State courts also have the power to review state laws or actions based upon their state constitutions.
• Legislative actions (laws made by congress)
• Executive actions (treaties, executive orders issued by the president, or regulations issued by a government agency)
• State and local laws

Case Studies

Marbury v. madison , 1803.

• Case History

When President John Adams did not win a second term in the 1801 election, he used the final days of his presidency to make a large number of political appointments.  When the new president (Thomas Jefferson) took office, he told his Secretary of State (James Madison), not to deliver the official paperwork to the government officials who had been appointed by Adams.  Thus the government officials, including William Marbury, were denied their new jobs.  William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , to force Madison to deliver the commission.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (a law written by Congress), gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus to settle disputes such as the one described here.  This power to force actions of government officials went above and beyond anything mentioned in Article III of the Constitution.

Therefore, in addition to deciding whether or not William Marbury had a right to his job, the U.S. Supreme Court also had to decide whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was in violation of the Constitution (the birth of Judicial Review ).

This case did not reach the U.S. Supreme Court the way most issues do.  Most cases reach the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, when the Justices are asked to review a decision of a lower court.  In this case, William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court directly due to the provision in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Note:  The power to directly accept petitions such as these is not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

Though the Justices agreed that William Marbury had a right to his job, they also ruled that issuing the writ of mandamus to force that to happen did not fall under their jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court opinion explained that it is within their power and authority to review acts of Congress, such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court said “ The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the (first) part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law .” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall.

• The Oyez Project
• The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994

In 1990, Margaret Gilleo placed a sign in the yard of her home in Ladue, Missouri. The sign said “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” The city of Ladue had a law against yard signs, and told Ms. Gilleo to take her signs down. Ms. Gilleo sued the city of Ladue for violating her 1 st Amendment rights.

Was Ladue’s law against signs unconstitutional?

Margaret Gilleo sued the city of Ladue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court ruled in her favor and stopped Ladue from enforcing the law. Ladue appealed the decision, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also found in Ms. Gilleo’s favor. The city of Ladue then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Ladue’s law against yard signs violated the 1 st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 1 st Amendment protects political speech, and banning yard signs takes away the main avenue by which people traditionally express their personal political views. The value of protecting personal political speech is more important than Ladue’s desire to keep the city free of clutter.

The Supreme Court said “ They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression .” by author of opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens.

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Ladue v. Gilleo , 512 U.S. 43 (1994)

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966

Annie Harper was not allowed to register to vote in Virginia because she wasn’t able to pay the state’s poll tax. Virginia law required voters to pay $1.50 tax to register, with the money collected going to public school funding. Ms. Harper sued the Virginia Board of Elections, claiming the poll tax violated her 14 th Amendment right to equal protection. Note: The 24 th Amendment to the Constitution already banned poll taxes in federal elections, but not in state elections.

Was the Virginia law requiring a tax to vote in a state election unconstitutional?

The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Harper’s suit in favor of the Board of Elections. She then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court declared the Virginia poll tax law unconstitutional. By making it more difficult for poor people to vote, the state was violating the 14 th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Voting is a fundamental right, and should remain accessible to all citizens. The amount of wealth someone has should have no bearing on their ability to vote freely.

The Supreme Court said “ We conclude that a State violates the …(Constitution).. …whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax …. Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned. ” by author of opinion, Justice William O. Douglas

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections , 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Case Studies

Civil Justice Council

by Graham Ross and Beth Silver

The case studies provided here general involve only live cases, and statistics are provided where available.   An early impression is that, with the exception of those services making use of various forms of blind bidding (a tool that can be used within any process of dispute resolution, online or offline and, therefore, not alone likely to drive any overall recommendations and conclusions for the ODR Advisory Group) the only ODR services used in live casework have been limited to those using the online medium simply as a platform for discourse (whether synchronous, as in conferencing and chat rooms, or asynchronous, as in forum based systems). Those systems attempt to do little more than emulate existing dispute resolution processes such as mediation and arbitration (albeit with the benefit, in so doing, of avoiding physical attendances) and depend, for the quality of their outcomes and user satisfaction levels, very much on the ability, experience and approach of the neutrals rather than on the technology itself.

Projects considered in these papers include: domain disputes, eBay, The Mediation Room, Modria, Smarter Complaints and eQuibbly.

Related content

• Download CJC-Case-Studies-at-Feb-2015-edited1.doc file CJC - ODR case studies (2015) 94.00 kb
• Download Additional-Case-Studies1.pdf file CJC - ODR additional case studies 65.09 kb

Further information

Online Dispute Resolution

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

MENU Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable

• Funding Opportunities

Case Studies

The WH-LAIR Case Studies are two-page documents that illustrate how civil legal aid supports federal efforts to serve the low-income and other vulnerable populations in various areas. They contain descriptions of common challenges faced by vulnerable populations, examples of federal responses to these challenges, and concrete examples of the ways in which civil legal aid meaningfully supports federal agencies’ efforts. The WH-LAIR continues to issue new case studies on selected topics.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Protect Consumers

Standing up for Victims of Mortgage Fraud

A home repair contractor approached Sadie, an 85-year-old African American woman who has owned her home for forty years, promising to perform home improvements under a "free government program" for seniors.  Sadie did not understand the papers she signed, and did not realize that the contractor had taken $122,000 from a reverse mortgage on her home even before any work was done.  He eventually remodeled two bathrooms, but the work was sloppy and defective.  No other home improvements were performed.  Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAF), a federally-funded Legal Services Corporation grantee, filed a lawsuit to void the loan and recover money damages from the contractor's company, ultimately settling for $110,000.  LAF continues to represent other mostly elderly and minority victims of this reverse mortgage scheme.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Keep America Working

Legal Aid gets Dad Back on Road to Work

After five years working as a delivery driver for a home improvement chain, Joe lost his job when his driver’s license was suspended because medical expenses for his prematurely-born daughter left him unable to pay outstanding traffic fines.  SonomaWORKS,  Sonoma County’s HHS-funded  welfare-to-work program, referred Joe to what seemed like a perfect job as a delivery driver for a parts store. When the employer offered him a position contingent on securing a driver’s license, he sought help from Legal Aid of Sonoma County.  With funding from California’s TANF program, Joe’s legal aid lawyer successfully arranged an affordable payment plan for a reduced bail amount so Joe could pay off his fines and get his drivers license reinstated. Thanks to the legal and employment services provided through SonomaWORKS, Joe once again became self-sufficient.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Prevent Elder Abuse

Legal Aid Delivers Justice for Elderly Domestic Violence Victim

Cynthia was 83-years old when her controlling husband threw her out of their home and cut her off from all assets after she became too ill to care for him and their home. Cynthia’s husband was wealthy, and theirs was a second marriage that occurred late in life. During their marriage, Cynthia became isolated and was subjected to controlling and threatening behavior. After her husband Kicked her out of their home, she had no means of support other than a small Social Security benefit. Funded in part by DOJ OVW’s Legal Assistance for Victims grant, a Montana Legal Services Association attorney represented Cynthia in court.  The attorney successfully obtained a property settlement that allowed Cynthia to live out her remaining years in safety and in a home close to her adult children.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts On Behalf Of Tribes & Tribal Members

Doctor prescribes a lawyer to keep family healthy and housed

After Rose, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, lost her adult daughter in a car accident, she was left to raise five grandchildren.  With no room for the children in her own house, Rose moved into her deceased daughter’s apartment.  Still grieving, Rose received an eviction notice from the housing agency, because she was not named on the apartment lease.  She was told that she and the children had to move.  When a pediatrician at the Indian Health Service clinic learned of the situation, she referred Rose to DNA-People’s Legal Services Medical-Legal Partnership Program, funded by DOJ’s Tribal Civil Legal Assistance Program. With the help of her DNA-People’s Legal Services lawyer, Rose showed that tribal law and federal policies allowed her to assume the lease obligations.  Rose continued to care for the children in their own home and, with DNA’s help, obtained legal guardianship over each grandchild.

WH-LAIR Case Study: On Behalf Of Tribes & Tribal Members

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Prevent Domestic Violence

“Nazia,” a 37-year-old immigrant from Guyana, fled with her two young children from the physical and emotional abuse of her husband. With the assistance of Legal Services Corporation-funded Queens Legal Services (QLS), a recipient of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Family and Youth Services Bureau funding, she successfully obtained an Order of Protection and full custody of her children. However, shortly thereafter, Nazia’s abuser retaliated by filing for a modification of custody, citing frivolous allegations of inappropriate parenting. Her legal aid lawyer continued to represent her and also referred Nazia to a QLS social worker, who provided counseling to her and her children throughout the process. Again, thanks to her legal aid lawyer, after two years of litigation, Nazia settled the case and retained sole legal custody of her children.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Prevent Domestic Violence  

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People with Criminal Records Make a Successful Reentry

“Andy’s” 10-year old felony conviction prevented him from pursuing his hopes of securing a state license to become a New York Licensed Practical Nurse. The Fortune Society, a grantee of U.S. Department of Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program, referred Andy to MFY Legal Services in New York. His legal aid lawyer helped Andy obtain out-of state criminal court records, gather proof of rehabilitation, and represented him at the initial investigative interview. The result was a successful license application and a job.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Successful Reentry

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Veterans & Servicemembers

When “Clyde” sought medical help from the Philadelphia U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a social worker learned he had fallen behind on his rent and faced eviction from his apartment. The social worker and the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) caseworker recognized Clyde’s need for legal help, and assisted Clyde in getting an appointment with an attorney at the SSVF program’s legal aid partner, Homeless Advocacy Project. With the SSVF program providing some of Clyde’s back rent, the attorney negotiated an agreement to stop the eviction in exchange for a lump sum payment for most of the unpaid rent, plus a payment plan to cover the remainder. With his housing stabilized, Clyde was able to focus on his health needs.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Veterans and Servicemembers

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Keep Children in School

Growing up in a community influenced by gangs, “Carl” was expelled from middle school. Later incarcerated for a juvenile offense, Carl began working with a TeamChild ® attorney – partially funded by U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent – to plan his release and return to school. His attorney successfully advocated for his readmission. When other students threatened Carl he sought help from school administrators who responded by expelling him. His attorney successfully represented him at the hearing and Carl finished the semester. Fearful of the gangs, he left Washington state to live with relatives, and pursue a GED and Job Corps training program. Denied admission because of his juvenile record, his lawyer stepped in yet again, to appeal and document Carl’s determination to get back on track. Job Corps reversed their decision. Carl got his GED and is working hard towards his auto mechanic certificate.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Keep Children in Schools

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People Exit Homelessness and Stay Housed

“Frank,” a disabled man living in U.S. Department of Agriculture-subsidized housing in rural Iowa, received an eviction notice from his landlord after neighbors complained that he yelled too much, especially late at night. Attempts by the property manager to talk to Frank about the problem only made it worse. Fearing that he would become homeless, Frank sought help from Legal Services Corporation-funded Iowa Legal Aid. With support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Emergency Solutions Grant, Iowa Legal Aid could assist him. Frank’s lawyer realized that his disruptive behavior flowed from untreated mental illness. She met with his property manager and reached out to other professionals to help Frank manage his mental illness. They collaborated on a plan to address the problems and involve his case manager as an intermediary if an issue arose. The property manager agreed to dismiss the eviction, and Frank remained in his home.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People Access Healthcare

“Alex” sought help from Legal Services Corporation-funded Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County because of medical debt that threatened his family with bankruptcy. Unable to purchase affordable insurance in the private market because of his pre-existing condition, Alex’s debt had accrued after several emergency room visits for a severe heart condition that required surgery he could not afford. In addition to helping negotiate his medical bills with the hospital and avoid bankruptcy, his legal aid attorney – thanks in part to support from the Affordable Care Act Consumer Assistance Program funds – helped identify affordable insurance options through California’s Covered CA and new adult Medicaid expansion programs that will help Alex get the surgery he desperately needs.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Access Health Care

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Assist Law Enforcement & Promote Public Safety

Police partnership with legal aid help decrease incidence of domestic violence

The High Point Police Department partnered with Legal Aid of North Carolina, Family Service of the Piedmont, and other community groups to open the High Point Center for Children and Families and Victims’ Justice as part of the COPS-funded Offender Focused Domestic Violence Initiative (OFDVI). The initiative focuses on early intervention to break the cycle of domestic violence, and helps victims with their civil legal needs, such as obtaining protective orders. Within the first two years of the OFVDI, recidivism rates – which typically range from 20-34% -- decreased to 9% across more than 1,000 offenders.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Assist Law Enforcement & Promote Public Safety

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Americans with Disabilities

P&A Lawyer Listens to Teacher’s Tale of Denial of Services for Hearing Loss

When “Jack” realized his already limited hearing had deteriorated, he knew he needed new hearing aids to keep his teaching job. But when Jack requested a replacement device, Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VR), the state government office that helps people with disabilities get and retain employment, denied the request because VR’s policy required a hearing change of at least 10 decibels to provide replacement devices and Jack didn’t meet that requirement. Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS), with funding from the Department of Education’s Client Assistant Program, appealed the denial. At the appeal, the administrative law judge determined that VR’s 10-decibel requirement was inconsistent with federal law, as it did not account for the individual needs of each VR client. Thanks to IPAS’s help, Jack received new hearing aids and kept his job. IPAS also used the decision to help other Hoosiers needing replacement hearing aids to retain their employment.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Americans with Disabilities

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Human Trafficking Victims

Legal aid helps restaurant workers in federal prosecution of traffickers and public benefits

“Narawit” was enticed to Colorado from Southeast Asia with a work visa and good wages as a chef. However, the restaurant owner forced him to work twelve-hour shifts without breaks, and the pay was far less than promised with numerous illegal deductions and fees. When the owner didn’t renew his visa, Narawit feared he had no options. Fortunately, DOJ prosecuted the owner, and  Colorado Legal Services (CLS) helped Narawit and 8 other workers in the federal prosecution. CLS helped them meet with federal prosecutors and investigators, calculate unpaid wages, and prepare victim impact statements. CLS also helped recover restitution for nearly 60 workers. Later, when Narawit became seriously ill, CLS, with funding from OVC’s Specialized Services for Victims of Human Trafficking grant, helped him successfully appeal the denial of Medicaid and food stamps by establishing his eligibility as a human trafficking victim.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Human Trafficking Victims

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Strengthen Families

Father and son get parenting support from legal aid

“Christopher” was a dedicated father to a young son, for whom he regularly paid child support. When his work schedule was reduced and his earnings dropped, he sought help from the Alameda County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator’s office, which is funded in part by ACF’s Child Support Enforcement Program at HHS. A staff attorney there helped him request a modified child support order that would reflect his pay cut. The lawyer then explained how Christopher could use this opportunity to request increased visitation time with his son and take on more parenting responsibility. Staff from the court’s Family Law Facilitator’s Office was present at the hearing to provide legal information and procedural guidance to Christopher. The court made the proposed changes and Christopher’s payments were reduced to an amount that he could afford. He began picking his son up from school twice a week and eating dinner together, before returning him to his mother.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Strengthen Families

Library electronic resources outage May 29th and 30th

Between 9:00 PM EST on Saturday, May 29th and 9:00 PM EST on Sunday, May 30th users will not be able to access resources through the Law Library’s Catalog, the Law Library’s Database List, the Law Library’s Frequently Used Databases List, or the Law Library’s Research Guides. Users can still access databases that require an individual user account (ex. Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law), or databases listed on the Main Library’s A-Z Database List.

• Georgetown Law Library
• Research Process

Case Law Research Guide

Introduction.

• Print Case Reporters
• Online Resources for Cases
• Finding Cases: Digests, Headnotes, and Key Numbers
• Finding Cases: Terms & Connectors Searching

Key to Icons

• Georgetown only
• On Bloomberg
• More Info (hover)
• Preeminent Treatise

Every law student and practicing attorney must be able to find, read, analyze, and interpret case law. Under the common law principles of stare decisis, a court must follow the decisions in previous cases on the same legal topic. Therefore, finding cases is essential to finding out what the law is on a particular issue.

This guide will show you how to read a case citation and will set out the sources, both print and online, for finding cases. This guide also covers how to use digests, headnotes, and key numbers to find case law, as well as how to find cases through terms and connectors searching.

To find cases using secondary sources, such as legal encyclopedias or legal treatises, see our Secondary Sources Research Guide . For additional strategies to find cases, like using statutory annotations or citators, see our  Case Law Research Tutorial . Our tutorial also covers how to update cases using citators (Lexis’ Shepard’s tool and Westlaw’s KeyCite).

Basic Case Citation

A case citation is a reference to where a case (also called a  decision  or an  opinion  ) is printed in a book. The citation can also be used to retrieve cases from  Westlaw  and  Lexis . A case citation consists of a volume number, an abbreviation of the title of the book or other item, and a page number.  

The precise format of a case citation depends on a number of factors, including the jurisdiction, court, and type of case. You should review the rest of this section on citing cases (and the relevant rules in  The Bluebook ) before trying to format a case citation for the first time. See our Bluebook Guide for more information.

The basic format of a case citation is as follows:

Parallel Citations

When the same case is printed in different books, citations to more than one book may be given. These additional citations are known as  parallel citations .

Example: 265 U.S. 274, 68 L. Ed. 1016, 44 S. Ct. 565.

This means that the case you would find at page 565 of volume 44 of the  Supreme Court Reporter  (published by West) will be the same case you find on page 1016 of volume 68 of  Lawyers' Edition  (published by Lexis), and both will be the same as the opinion you find in the official government version,  United States Reports . Although the text of the opinion will be identical, the added editorial material will differ with each publisher.

Williams Library Reference

Reference Desk : Atrium, 2nd (Main) Floor (202) 662-9140 Request a Research Consultation  

Case law research tutorial.

Update History

Revised 4/22 (CMC) Updated 10/22 (MK) Links 07/2023 (VL)

• Next: Print Case Reporters >>
• © Georgetown University Law Library. These guides may be used for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given. These guides may not be sold. Any comments, suggestions, or requests to republish or adapt a guide should be submitted using the Research Guides Comments form . Proper credit includes the statement: Written by, or adapted from, Georgetown Law Library (current as of .....).
• Last Updated: May 24, 2024 9:20 AM
• URL: https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/cases

Recent Cases

Kiviti v. bhatt.

Fourth Circuit Holds that Article III Mootness Doctrine Does Not Apply to Bankruptcy Proceedings.

Colindres v. United States Department of State

D.C. Circuit Defers to Consulate's Visa Denial.

K & R Contractors, LLC v. Keene

Fourth Circuit Declines to Consider Constitutionality of Removal Protections Because of Lack of Injury.

Lee ex rel. Gap, Inc. v. Fisher

Ninth Circuit Enforces Forum Selection Clause Blocking Derivative Suits.

Doe v. William Marsh Rice University

Fifth Circuit Advances Novel Theory of Liability for Anti-Male Discrimination.

Eldridge v. Howard

Ninth Circuit Holds that D.C. Superior Court is Not a "State Court" for Purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior

Fourth Circuit Holds Congress Stripped Jurisdiction to Hear Pipeline Challenge.

Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc.

Fourth Circuit Schism Spotlights Unholy Consequences of Ministerial Exception Doctrine.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety

Fifth Circuit Bars Individual-Capacity Money Damages Under RLUIPA.

Pico Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Santa Monica

California Supreme Court Interprets State Act to Expand Reach of Vote Dilution Protection.

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Court Role and Structure

Federal courts hear cases involving the constitutionality of a law, cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S. ambassadors and public ministers, disputes between two or more states, admiralty law, also known as maritime law, and bankruptcy cases. 

The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government’s executive branch to enforce court decisions.

Courts decide what really happened and what should be done about it. They decide whether a person committed a crime and what the punishment should be. They also provide a peaceful way to decide private disputes that people can’t resolve themselves. Depending on the dispute or crime, some cases end up in the federal courts and some end up in state courts. Learn more about the different types of federal courts.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court. Learn more about the Supreme Court.

Courts of Appeals

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals.  The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims .

Learn more about the courts of appeals . 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are 3-judge panels authorized to hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. These panels are a unit of the federal courts of appeals, and must be established by that circuit. 

Five circuits have established panels: First Circuit , Sixth Circuit , Eighth Circuit , Ninth Circuit , and Tenth Circuit .

District Courts

The nation’s 94 district or trial courts are called U.S. District Courts. District courts resolve disputes by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right.  

Trial courts include the district judge who tries the case and a jury that decides the case. Magistrate judges assist district judges in preparing cases for trial. They may also conduct trials in misdemeanor cases.

There is at least one district court in each state, and the District of Columbia. Each district includes a U.S. bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court. Four territories of the United States have U.S. district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases: Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

There are also two special trial courts. The Court of International Trade addresses cases involving international trade and customs laws. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government. 

Bankruptcy Courts

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases involving personal, business, or farm bankruptcy. This means a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court. Through the bankruptcy process, individuals or businesses that can no longer pay their creditors may either seek a court-supervised liquidation of their assets, or they may reorganize their financial affairs and work out a plan to pay their debts.

Article I Courts

Congress created several Article I, or legislative courts, that do not have full judicial power. Judicial power is the authority to be the final decider in all questions of Constitutional law, all questions of federal law and to hear claims at the core of habeas corpus issues. Article I Courts are:

• U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
• U.S. Tax Court

AI on Trial: Legal Models Hallucinate in 1 out of 6 (or More) Benchmarking Queries

A new study reveals the need for benchmarking and public evaluations of AI tools in law.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly transforming the practice of law. Nearly  three quarters of lawyers plan on using generative AI for their work, from sifting through mountains of case law to drafting contracts to reviewing documents to writing legal memoranda. But are these tools reliable enough for real-world use?

Large language models have a documented tendency to “hallucinate,” or make up false information. In one highly-publicized case, a New York lawyer  faced sanctions for citing ChatGPT-invented fictional cases in a legal brief;  many similar cases have since been reported. And our  previous study of general-purpose chatbots found that they hallucinated between 58% and 82% of the time on legal queries, highlighting the risks of incorporating AI into legal practice. In his  2023 annual report on the judiciary , Chief Justice Roberts took note and warned lawyers of hallucinations. 

Across all areas of industry, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is seen and promoted as the solution for reducing hallucinations in domain-specific contexts. Relying on RAG, leading legal research services have released AI-powered legal research products that they claim  “avoid” hallucinations and guarantee  “hallucination-free” legal citations. RAG systems promise to deliver more accurate and trustworthy legal information by integrating a language model with a database of legal documents. Yet providers have not provided hard evidence for such claims or even precisely defined “hallucination,” making it difficult to assess their real-world reliability.

AI-Driven Legal Research Tools Still Hallucinate

In a new  preprint study by  Stanford RegLab and  HAI researchers, we put the claims of two providers, LexisNexis (creator of Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (creator of Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI)), to the test. We show that their tools do reduce errors compared to general-purpose AI models like GPT-4. That is a substantial improvement and we document instances where these tools provide sound and detailed legal research. But even these bespoke legal AI tools still hallucinate an alarming amount of the time: the Lexis+ AI and Ask Practical Law AI systems produced incorrect information more than 17% of the time, while Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research hallucinated more than 34% of the time.

Read the full study, Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools

To conduct our study, we manually constructed a pre-registered dataset of over 200 open-ended legal queries, which we designed to probe various aspects of these systems’ performance.

Broadly, we investigated (1) general research questions (questions about doctrine, case holdings, or the bar exam); (2) jurisdiction or time-specific questions (questions about circuit splits and recent changes in the law); (3) false premise questions (questions that mimic a user having a mistaken understanding of the law); and (4) factual recall questions (questions about simple, objective facts that require no legal interpretation). These questions are designed to reflect a wide range of query types and to constitute a challenging real-world dataset of exactly the kinds of queries where legal research may be needed the most.

Figure 1: Comparison of hallucinated (red) and incomplete (yellow) answers across generative legal research tools.

These systems can hallucinate in one of two ways. First, a response from an AI tool might just be  incorrect —it describes the law incorrectly or makes a factual error. Second, a response might be  misgrounded —the AI tool describes the law correctly, but cites a source which does not in fact support its claims.

Given the critical importance of authoritative sources in legal research and writing, the second type of hallucination may be even more pernicious than the outright invention of legal cases. A citation might be “hallucination-free” in the narrowest sense that the citation  exists , but that is not the only thing that matters. The core promise of legal AI is that it can streamline the time-consuming process of identifying relevant legal sources. If a tool provides sources that  seem authoritative but are in reality irrelevant or contradictory, users could be misled. They may place undue trust in the tool's output, potentially leading to erroneous legal judgments and conclusions.

Figure 2:  Top left: Example of a hallucinated response by Westlaw's AI-Assisted Research product. The system makes up a statement in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure that does not exist (and Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) held that a closely related bankruptcy deadline provision was not jurisdictional). Top right: Example of a hallucinated response by LexisNexis's Lexis+ AI. Casey and its undue burden standard were overruled by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022); the correct answer is rational basis review. Bottom left: Example of a hallucinated response by Thomson Reuters's Ask Practical Law AI. The system fails to correct the user’s mistaken premise—in reality, Justice Ginsburg joined the Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage—and instead provides additional false information about the case. Bottom right: Example of a hallucinated response from GPT-4, which generates a statutory provision that has not been codified.

RAG Is Not a Panacea

Figure 3: An overview of the retrieval-augmentation generation (RAG) process. Given a user query (left), the typical process consists of two steps: (1) retrieval (middle), where the query is embedded with natural language processing and a retrieval system takes embeddings and retrieves the relevant documents (e.g., Supreme Court cases); and (2) generation (right), where the retrieved texts are fed to the language model to generate the response to the user query. Any of the subsidiary steps may introduce error and hallucinations into the generated response. (Icons are courtesy of FlatIcon.)

Under the hood, these new legal AI tools use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce their results, a method that many tout as a potential solution to the hallucination problem. In theory, RAG allows a system to first  retrieve the relevant source material and then use it to  generate the correct response. In practice, however, we show that even RAG systems are not hallucination-free. 

We identify several challenges that are particularly unique to RAG-based legal AI systems, causing hallucinations. 

First, legal retrieval is hard. As any lawyer knows, finding the appropriate (or best) authority can be no easy task. Unlike other domains, the law is not entirely composed of verifiable  facts —instead, law is built up over time by judges writing  opinions . This makes identifying the set of documents that definitively answer a query difficult, and sometimes hallucinations occur for the simple reason that the system’s retrieval mechanism fails.

Second, even when retrieval occurs, the document that is retrieved can be an inapplicable authority. In the American legal system, rules and precedents differ across jurisdictions and time periods; documents that might be relevant on their face due to semantic similarity to a query may actually be inapposite for idiosyncratic reasons that are unique to the law. Thus, we also observe hallucinations occurring when these RAG systems fail to identify the truly binding authority. This is particularly problematic as areas where the law is in flux is precisely where legal research matters the most. One system, for instance, incorrectly recited the “undue burden” standard for abortion restrictions as good law, which was overturned in  Dobbs (see Figure 2). 

Third, sycophancy—the tendency of AI to agree with the user's incorrect assumptions—also poses unique risks in legal settings. One system, for instance, naively agreed with the question’s premise that Justice Ginsburg dissented in  Obergefell , the case establishing a right to same-sex marriage, and answered that she did so based on her views on international copyright. (Justice Ginsburg did not dissent in  Obergefell and, no, the case had nothing to do with copyright.) Notwithstanding that answer, here there are optimistic results. Our tests showed that both systems generally navigated queries based on false premises effectively. But when these systems do agree with erroneous user assertions, the implications can be severe—particularly for those hoping to use these tools to increase access to justice among  pro se and under-resourced litigants.

Responsible Integration of AI Into Law Requires Transparency

Ultimately, our results highlight the need for rigorous and transparent benchmarking of legal AI tools. Unlike other domains, the use of AI in law remains alarmingly opaque: the tools we study provide no systematic access, publish few details about their models, and report no evaluation results at all.

This opacity makes it exceedingly challenging for lawyers to procure and acquire AI products. The large law firm  Paul Weiss spent nearly a year and a half testing a product, and did not develop “hard metrics” because checking the AI system was so involved that it “makes any efficiency gains difficult to measure.” The absence of rigorous evaluation metrics makes responsible adoption difficult, especially for practitioners that are less resourced than Paul Weiss. 

The lack of transparency also threatens lawyers’ ability to comply with ethical and professional responsibility requirements. The bar associations of  California ,  New York , and  Florida have all recently released guidance on lawyers’ duty of supervision over work products created with AI tools. And as of May 2024,  more than 25 federal judges have issued standing orders instructing attorneys to disclose or monitor the use of AI in their courtrooms.

Without access to evaluations of the specific tools and transparency around their design, lawyers may find it impossible to comply with these responsibilities. Alternatively, given the high rate of hallucinations, lawyers may find themselves having to verify each and every proposition and citation provided by these tools, undercutting the stated efficiency gains that legal AI tools are supposed to provide.

Our study is meant in no way to single out LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters. Their products are far from the only legal AI tools that stand in need of transparency—a slew of startups offer similar products and have  made   similar   claims , but they are available on even more restricted bases, making it even more difficult to assess how they function. 

Based on what we know, legal hallucinations have not been solved.The legal profession should turn to public benchmarking and rigorous evaluations of AI tools. 

This story was updated on Thursday, May 30, 2024, to include analysis of a third AI tool, Westlaw’s AI-Assisted Research.

Paper authors: Varun Magesh is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Faiz Surani is a research fellow at Stanford RegLab. Matthew Dahl is a joint JD/PhD student in political science at Yale University and graduate student affiliate of Stanford RegLab. Mirac Suzgun is a joint JD/PhD student in computer science at Stanford University and a graduate student fellow at Stanford RegLab. Christopher D. Manning is Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Machine Learning, Professor of Linguistics and Computer Science, and Senior Fellow at HAI. Daniel E. Ho is the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law, Professor of Political Science, Professor of Computer Science (by courtesy), Senior Fellow at HAI, Senior Fellow at SIEPR, and Director of the RegLab at Stanford University. 

More News Topics

Justice Dashboard

• Publications

Explore Data of Countries

Find out how people in different countries around the world experience justice. What are the most serious problems people face? How are problems being resolved? Find out the answers to these and more.

• Burkina Faso
• General population
• IDPs and host communities
• The Netherlands

Solving & Preventing

Guidelines for Justice Problems

Justice Services

Innovation is needed in the justice sector. What services are solving justice problems of people? Find out more about data on justice innovations.

The Gamechangers

The 7 most promising categories of justice innovations, that have the potential to increase access to justice for millions of people around the world.

Justice Innovation Labs

Explore solutions developed using design thinking methods for the justice needs of people in the Netherlands, Nigeria, Uganda and more.

Creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework where innovations and new justice services develop

Rules of procedure, public-private partnerships, creative sourcing of justice services, and new sources of revenue and investments can help in creating an enabling regulatory and financial framework.  

Forming a committed coalition of leaders

A committed group of leaders can drive change and innovation in justice systems and support the creation of an enabling environment.

Find out how specific justice problems impact people, how their justice journeys look like, and more.

• Employment Justice
• Family Justice
• Land Justice
• Neighbour Justice
• Crime Justice
• Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Trend Report 2021 – Delivering Justice / Case Study: Problem-Solving Courts in the US

Author: Isabella Banks , Justice Sector Advisor

Introduction

Problem-solving courts are specialised courts that aim to treat the problems that underlie and contribute to certain kinds of crime (Wright, no date). “Generally, a problem-solving court involves a close collaboration between a judge and a community service team to develop a case plan and closely monitor a participant’s compliance, imposing proper sanctions when necessary” (Ibid).  In the past three decades, problem-solving courts have become a fixture in the American criminal justice landscape, with over 3,000 established nationwide. All 50 states have appointed a statewide drug court coordinator, and at least 13 have introduced the broader position of statewide problem-solving court coordinator (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

What does it mean for a court to be problem-solving?

Although a number of different types of problem-solving courts exist across the US, they are generally organised around three common principles: problem-solving, collaboration, and accountability (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are focused on solving the underlying problems of those who perpetrate or are affected by crime. This includes reducing recidivism as well as rehabilitating participants (with the exception of domestic violence courts, as elaborated below), victims and the broader community (Ibid. p. iii.).

Problem-solving courts are also characterised by interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders in and outside of the criminal justice system. Dedicated staff who have been assigned to the problem-solving court work together to develop court policies and resolve individual cases in a relatively non-adversarial way. Ongoing collaboration between court staff and public agencies, service providers and clinical experts is also essential for providing appropriate treatment to problem-solving court participants (Ibid. p. 38). Because problem-solving courts aim to address the impact of crime on the community and increase public trust in justice, they also have frequent contact with community members and organisations and regularly solicit local input on their work (Ibid. p. 39).

Problem-solving courts aim to hold individuals with justice system involvement, service providers and themselves accountable to the broader community. For individuals with justice system involvement, this means holding them accountable for their criminal behaviour by promoting and monitoring their compliance with court mandates. In order to comply, problem-solving court participants must understand what is expected of them, regularly appear for status hearings, and have clear (extrinsic and intrinsic) incentives to complete their mandates. 

For service providers, this means providing services based on a coherent, specified and effective model, and accurately and regularly informing the court about participants’ progress. Problem-solving courts are also responsible for assessing the quality of service delivery and making sure models are adhered to (Ibid. p. 43-44). 

Lastly and perhaps most fundamentally, problem-solving courts must hold themselves to “the same high standards expected of participants and stakeholders” (Ibid. p. 44-45).  This means monitoring implementation and outcomes of their services using up-to-date data. 

What does problem-solving justice look like in practice?

Problem-solving justice comes in different forms. The original, best known, and most widespread problem-solving court model is the drug court. The first drug was created in 1989, after a judge in Miami Dade county became frustrated seeing the same drug cases cycling through her court and began experimenting with putting defendants into treatment (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). This approach (elaborated in the sections that follow) gradually gained traction, and there are now over 3,000 drug courts across the US (Strong and Kyckelhahn 2016).

This proliferation of drug courts helped stimulate the emergence of three other well-known problem-solving court models: mental health, domestic violence and community courts (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. iii.). Mental health courts are similar to drug courts in that they focus on rehabilitation, but different in that they aim for the improved social functioning and stability of their participants rather than complete abstinence (Ibid. p. 51). Domestic violence courts are unique in that they do not universally embrace participant treatment and rehabilitation as an important goal. Instead, many – thought not all – are primarily focused on victim support and safety and participant accountability and deterrence (Ibid. p. 52). 

Community courts “seek to address crime, public safety, and quality of life problems at the neighbourhood level. Unlike other problem-solving courts…community courts do not specialise in one particular problem. Rather, the goal of community courts is to address the multiple problems and needs that contribute to social disorganisation in a designated geographical area. For this reason, community courts vary widely in response to varying local needs, conditions, and priorities” (Lee et al. 2013). There are now over 70 community courts in operation around the world (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Some are based in traditional courthouses, while others work out of storefronts, libraries or former schools. Though they typically focus on criminal offences, some community courts extend their jurisdiction to non-criminal matters to meet specific needs of the communities they serve as well (Ibid. p. 1.). Regardless of location and jurisdiction, all community courts take a proactive approach to community safety and experiment with different ways of providing appropriate services and sanctions (Wright n.d.).

Other less common problem-solving models include veterans courts, homeless courts, reentry courts, trafficking courts, fathering courts, and truancy courts (Ibid). 

The principles and practices of problem-solving justice can also be applied within non-specialised courts that already exist. In a 2000 resolution that was later reaffirmed in 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators advocated for, “Encourag[ing], where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods of problem-solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of law” (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 3). Key features of a problem-solving approach to justice – which will be elaborated in the sections that follow – include: individualised screening and problem assessment; individualised treatment and service mandate; direct engagement of the participant; a focus on outcomes; and system change (Ibid. p. iv).

Problems and impacts

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts measured and mapped the following as a first step towards people-centred justice.

• The most prevalent justice problems within the population served
• The justice problems with greatest impact on the population served
• The justice problems that are most difficult to resolve and therefore tend to remain ongoing
• The groups most vulnerable to (systemic and daily) injustices within the population served

As their name suggests, problem-solving courts emerged to address the most prevalent, impactful, and difficult to resolve justice problems within the populations they serve. The first drug (and Drinking While Driving or DWI) courts were created as a response to the increase in individuals with substance use disorders in the criminal justice system and their levels of recidivism. Similarly, mental health courts “seek to address the growing number of [individuals with mental health needs] that have entered the criminal justice system” (Wright n.d.). As one interviewee put it, “The biggest mental health provider [in Los Angeles] is the county jail” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Drug and mental health problems are among the most common issues faced by individuals responsible for both minor and more serious crime. These issues are difficult to resolve because judges – who have historically had little understanding of treatment and addiction – are inclined to hand down harsh sentences when defendants relapse or fail to complete their court mandate (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020). This trend was particularly acute in the 1980s, when the war on drugs resulted in draconian sentencing laws that reduced judicial discretion (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In order to understand and meet the needs of their unique populations, problem-solving courts track measures of problem prevalence and severity. As noted in the first section, early and individualised screening and problem assessment is a key feature of problem-solving justice. The purpose of such screenings is to “understand the full nature of the [participant’s] situation and the underlying issues that led to justice involvement.” 

For drug courts, relevant measures of problem severity may include: drug of choice; years of drug use; age of first use; criminal history; and treatment history (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 50). Mental health courts typically assess the nature and severity of their participants’ underlying mental health issues, and may also look at participant stability (in terms of health care, housing, compliance with prescribed medications, and hospitalisations) (Ibid. p. 51). 

Domestic violence courts and community courts are somewhat unique in that the primary population they serve include victims and members of the community as well as individuals with justice system involvement. Domestic violence courts focus on assessing the needs of victims of domestic violence in order to connect them with safety planning and other individualised services. Likewise, in addition to identifying the problems that impact individual participants, community courts focus on assessing the problems that impact the underserved (and also often disserved) neighbourhoods where they work. These should be identified through outreach in the relevant community but often include concentrations of lower level crimes – such as vandalism, shoplifting, and prostitution – as well as distrust of traditional justice actors (Ibid. p. 55-56).

Now that technical assistance is broadly available for problem-solving courts across the US, individualised screening and problem assessment has become increasingly data-driven and informed by validated needs assessment tools (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Over the years, problem-solving courts have also become more adept at identifying groups within the populations they serve that are particularly vulnerable to injustice. The advancement of brain science, for example, has influenced many problem-solving courts to treat participants under 25 differently and give them an opportunity to age out of crime. Young people transitioning out of foster care are particularly vulnerable to justice involvement given their sudden lack of family support. Trafficked individuals, who used to be treated as criminals, are now widely recognised as victims (Ibid). Specialised problem-solving courts, diversion programs, and training initiatives have emerged to understand the unique needs and vulnerabilities of this population (Wright n.d.).

Problem-solving courts have also become more aware of racial inequities in the populations selected to receive treatment (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Drug court participants in particular are often disproportionately white, with racial breakdowns that do not mirror the racial breakdowns of those arrested. This is largely a result of eligibility requirements tied to federal drug court funding, which has historically restricted individuals with violent criminal histories from participating. Drug courts have also been accused of cherry-picking participants who were most likely to be successful to improve their numbers and receive more funding. Both of these phenomena have had the effect of excluding disproportionate numbers of people of colour from drug treatment (Ibid). In addition to taking steps to mitigate these inequities, drug courts have increasingly come to recognise that cherry-picking low-risk cases reduces their effectiveness overall (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Defining + Monitoring Outcomes

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts researched and identified the outcomes that people in the target population expect from justice processes.

In 1993, the first community court was set up in the Midtown neighbourhood of New York City (Lee et al. 2013, p.1). Inspired by the Midtown model, the Red Hook Community Justice Center was established in a particularly disadvantaged area of Brooklyn seven years later. Like the Midtown Court, the goal of the Red Hook Community Justice Center was “to replace short-term jail sentences with community restitution assignments and mandated participation in social services” (Taylor 2016). 

In the planning stages however, residents of Red Hook were not happy to learn that a new court was being introduced in their community. Though sustained community outreach, Red Hook court staff were able to change these negative perceptions and convince residents they wanted to do something different. They began by asking the community what outcomes were most important to them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).  

This early engagement helped the Red Hook planners realise that tracking outcomes related to people’s presence in the court would not be enough to assess the court’s impact in the community. They would also need to look at outcomes that were meaningful to residents, asking questions like: How can we disrupt crime hot spots? How safe does the community feel? Do residents feel safe walking to the park, or the train? At what times? (Ibid).

Although the Red Hook community court model has since been replicated in different parts of the world, the experiences of two of these international courts illustrate that identifying the outcomes that community members expect from justice processes can sometimes be a challenge.

In 2005, England opened its first community court: the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre (NLCJC). A 2011 evaluation of the NLCJC acknowledged its innovative approach and “potentially transformative effect on criminal justice” but also noted:

How and why the Centre needs to connect with the public it is charged with serving remains one of the most complex and enduring concerns for staff...how consistently and how effectively the ‘community’ was contributing to the workings of the Centre provided a constant source of uncertainty” (Mair and Millings 2011).

After eight years of operation, the NLCJC was closed in 2013. Observers have since noted that a lack of grassroots community engagement in the planning and operation of the NLCJC was among the primary reasons that it ultimately failed to take hold (Murray and Blagg 2018; J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020). 

One year after the NLCJC opened in England, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) was piloted in the Collingwood neighbourhood of Melbourne, Australia. At the time, Collingwood had the highest crime rate in Melbourne, high rates of inequality, and a high concentration of services. This combination made it an ideal location for Australia’s first community court. 

Modelled on the Red Hook Community Justice Centre in Brooklyn and spearheaded by the State Attorney General at the time, Rob Hulls, the NJC pilot was focused on improving the community’s relationship with the justice system through local, therapeutic and procedural justice. Like Red Hook, it was designed based on evidence and an analysis of gaps in existing justice services. Despite shifting political winds –  including “tough-on-crime” rhetoric on the one hand and complaints of more favourable “postcode justice” available only for the NJC’s participants on the other – the NJC managed to secure ongoing state government support (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

Unlike the NLCJC, the NJC remains in operation today. The procedurally just design of the NJC building and approach of its magistrate, David Fanning, have earned the court significant credibility and legitimacy in the Collingwood community (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018; J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). Community and client engagement have continued to be a key feature of the NJC’s work, helping to reduce recidivism and increase compliance with community-based court orders (Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018) .

In spite of its success, some observers note that the NJC’s outreach efforts have not gone as far as they could have. Early consultations with a group of community stakeholders regarding the design and governance of the NJC were discontinued in the Centre’s later years. Although the reason for this is unclear and may well have been legitimate, the result was that key representatives of the community lost direct and regular access to NJC leadership over time (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020). 

These examples illustrate that even under the umbrella of a one-stop-shop community court, identifying expected justice outcomes in the community as a first step towards problem-solving justice – and continuing to do so even after the court is well-established – is not a given. The extent to which this is achieved depends on the approach of the particular court and its efforts to create a reciprocal and collaborative relationship with the surrounding community.

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts determined whether existing justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Problem-solving courts generally – and community courts and drug courts in particular – are created with the explicit intention to address gaps in existing justice processes. 

Community courts are typically established in communities that have been historically underserved and disproportionately incarcerated to provide a more holistic response to crime and increase trust in the justice system. 

In the early days of the Red Hook Community Justice Center, the community’s deep distrust of law enforcement emerged as a key challenge for the Center’s work. Red Hook staff approached this challenge by inviting police officers into the court and showing them the data they had collected on the justice outcomes that residents were experiencing. They helped the officers understand that by not addressing the root causes of crime in the Red Hook community, they were delaying crime rather than stopping it (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Over time, the court’s relationship with law enforcement has improved. In 2016, the Justice Center launched its “Bridging the Gap” initiative, which creates a safe space for young people and police officers to get to know each other and discuss difficult topics that offer the chance to explore the other’s perspective (Red Hook Justice News 2016; Sara Matusek 2017).

Similarly, the proliferation of drug courts across the country was a response to high rates of recidivism among individuals with substance use disorders, which persisted in spite of tough-on-crime sentencing practices. During the so-called “war on drugs” in the mid-1980s, judges across the country gradually began to realise that handing down increasingly long sentences to people with substance use disorders was not working. 

One such person was the late Honourable Peggy Hora, a California Superior Court judge responsible for criminal arraignments. Like other judges repeatedly confronted with defendants grappling with substance use disorders in the 1980s and 90s, Judge Hora initially felt that incarceration was the only tool available to her. Not much research had been done on incarceration at the time, so its detrimental effects were not yet widely known (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). 

Determined to understand why the defendants that came before her seemed to be willing to risk everything to access drugs – even their freedom and the right to see their children – Judge Hora took a class on chemical dependency. This experience brought her to the realisation that “everything they were doing was wrong.” She quickly built relationships with people at the National Institute on Drug Abuse and began engaging with drug treatment research at a national level (Ibid). 

Judge Hora eventually went on to establish and preside over the nation’s second drug court in Alameda County, California. After learning more about procedural justice and seeing evidence that early drug courts worked and saved money in the long run, she helped promote the model across the country and around the world (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts created a system for monitoring whether new, people-centered justice processes deliver these outcomes and allow people in the target population to move on?

Outcomes monitoring is an essential component of problem-solving justice. As Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel, and Adam Manksy of the Center for Court Innovation set out in their 2010 report on universal performance indicators for problem-solving courts:

It is perhaps their focus on the outcomes generated after a case has been disposed that most distinguishes problem-solving courts from conventional courts. Like all courts, problem-solving courts seek to uphold the due process rights of litigants and to operate efficiently, but their outcome orientation demands that they seek to address the underlying issues that precipitate justice involvement (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 1.).

Measuring and monitoring people-centred outcomes was also key to problem-solving courts’ early success. Because the problem-solving approach was so different from the status quo, showing evidence that it worked was necessary for building political and financial support. This meant clearly articulating the goals of problem-solving courts and finding ways to measure progress towards them (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

In their report, What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Porter, Rempel, and Mansky identify universal indicators for each of the three organising principles of problem-solving courts. They include: (under problem-solving) individualised justice and substantive education for court staff; (under collaboration) links with community-based agencies and court presence in community; and (under accountability) compliance reviews, early coordination of information, and court data systems (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 57).  Many of these problem-solving principles and practices can be (and are) applied and monitored in traditional courts. 

To ensure delivery of individualised justice for example, any court staff can engage the individuals appearing before it by making eye contact, addressing them clearly and directly, and asking if they have any questions about the charges or their mandate (Ibid). This kind of engagement can “radically change the experience of litigants, victims, and families” and “improve the chance of compliance and litigant perceptions of court fairness” (Ibid). Similarly, any court can prioritise and track its use of alternative sanctions – such as community service or drug treatment – and its efforts to link individuals to existing services in the community (Ibid).

The extent to which a particular (problem-solving or traditional) court monitors progress towards these people-centred outcomes depends on its ability to track compliance and behaviour change among participants. This can be achieved through regular compliance reviews, which provide “an ongoing opportunity for the court to communicate with [participants] and respond to their concerns and circumstances” (Ibid. p. 60-61). Investing in electronic data systems that track and coordinate information also makes it easier for a court to monitor its overall impact on case outcomes and improve the quality of its mandates (Ibid).

Successful outcomes monitoring also depends crucially on a court’s ability to develop strong relationships with researchers. Without this, early problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center would not have been able to, for example, quantify the impact of a 7-day jail stay in terms of budget, jail population, and bookings per month. Strong research partnerships also made it possible to compare successful and unsuccessful court participants, which was necessary to assess and improve the quality of the court’s services (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Outcomes monitoring at the Red Hook Community Justice Center was not without its challenges, however. Because most people who come before the court are charged with less serious crimes, their treatment mandates are relatively short. The short amount of time the Red Hook staff and service providers have to work with these participants means that outcomes related to individual progress are not likely to show a full picture of the court’s impact. The Red Hook Community Justice Center addressed this by also measuring outcomes related to the court’s impact on the community. What was the effect on social cohesion and stability when someone’s brother, father, or son was allowed to remain in the community instead of being incarcerated? (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Another challenge faced by community courts broadly is that traditional outcomes monitoring systems are not well-equipped to acknowledge the reality that everything is connected. Where does one draw the line between service providers and justice providers? If a restorative justice process facilitated under the supervision of the court fails to reconcile the parties in conflict but has a positive impact on the lives of the support people who participate, should it be considered a success or failure? 

A former Red Hook staff member involved in the court’s peacemaking initiative shared a story of a young, devout woman with a new boyfriend who mistreated her and who her children strongly disliked. When she tried to throw him out, the boyfriend would use her Christian values against her and convince her to let him stay. Eventually, he punched someone and was arrested on assault charges. His case was referred to a restorative justice circle for resolution. In the circle, the boyfriend was very aggressive and as a result, his case was sent back to court. The woman and her children asked if they could continue meeting in circle without him because they found it helpful (Ibid).

After a series of circle sessions together, the woman came to realise that her abusive boyfriend was using drugs and found the courage to kick him out. In his absence, the woman and her children were able to reconcile and reunite. The woman returned to school and her oldest son found a job. The criminal case that started the process was ultimately unresolved, but from a more holistic and common sense perspective the impact of the circles on the family was positive (Ibid). How should success be measured in this case? This is a challenge that community courts attempting to measure and monitor people-centred justice regularly face.

Evidence-Based Solutions

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts introduced interventions that are evidence-based and consistently deliver the justice outcomes that people in the target population look for.

Problem-solving courts have introduced a number of interventions that have proven to deliver people-centred outcomes for the communities they serve. Although different interventions work for different populations, direct engagement with participants and the delivery of individualised treatments are two key elements of the problem-solving orientation that all problem-solving courts share (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 29-30). 

As described in the previous section, direct engagement means that the judge speaks to participants directly and becomes actively engaged in producing positive change in their lives (Ibid. p. 30-31). This effort to ensure that participants feel heard, respected and experience the process as fair is supported by research on procedural justice. 

Individualised treatment means that the interventions delivered are tailored to the specific problems of each participant. This requires that the court offer “a continuum of treatment modalities and services to respond to the variety and degrees of need that participants present.” This service plan must be revisited by the court on a regular basis and adjusted depending on the participant’s reported progress (Ibid. p. 29-30).

Despite this shared approach to justice delivery, different problem-solving courts have identified different types of treatments and ways of monitoring whether they work that are unique to the populations they serve.

Community courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center, for example, generally work with the residents in their neighbourhood to find out what is important to them rather than imposing a predetermined set of solutions. 

The Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Melbourne did this through a unique problem-solving process that took place outside of the courtroom and which participants could opt into voluntarily. In a confidential, facilitated discussion based on restorative and therapeutic justice principles, participants were given an opportunity to share their perspective on the problems they were facing and empowered to become collaborators in their own rehabilitation. Important takeaways from this process would be reported back to the court’s magistrate so he could help them move forward – for example by changing their methadone (1) dose or changing the number of treatments they received per week. The collaborative nature of the sessions helped ensure that the treatment plans mandated by the court were realistic for participants. Though the content of these sessions was unpredictable and varied, the co-design process remained constant (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020; Halsey and Vel-Palumbo 2018).

With that said, certain interventions have proven to consistently improve outcomes for communities, victims, and individuals with justice system involvement when applied to low-level cases. These include: using (validated) screening and assessment tools (2); monitoring and enforcing court orders (3); using rewards and sanctions; promoting information technology (4); enhancing procedural justice (5); expanding sentencing options (to include community service and shorter interventions that incorporate individualised treatment); and engaging the community (6).

In 2009, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive independent evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center to assess whether it was achieving its goals to reduce crime and improve quality of life in the Red Hook neighbourhood through these interventions (Lee et al. 2013, p. 2.). The evaluation found that:

The Justice Center [had] been implemented largely in accordance with its program theory and project plan. The Justice Center secured the resources and staff needed to support its reliance on alternative sanctions, including an in-house clinic and arrangements for drug and other treatment services to be provided by local treatment providers...The Justice Center’s multi-jurisdictional nature, as well as many of its youth and community programs, evolved in direct response to concerns articulated in focus groups during the planning process, reflecting a stated intention to learn of and implement community priorities (Ibid. p. 4).

Using a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods, the evaluation also concluded that Red Hook had successfully: changed sentencing practices in a way that minimised incarceration and motivated compliance; provided flexible and individualised drug treatment; sustainably reduced rates of misdemeanour recidivism among young people and adults; and reduced arrests in the community. 

In spite of the robust evidence supporting their approach, many community courts experience resistance to their efforts to help participants address underlying issues of substance use and mental disorders through treatment. As Brett Taylor, a Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice and former defence attorney at the Red Hook explains:

Some critics of community courts say that [this] is not the job of courts and should be handled by other entities. In a perfect world, I would agree. However, in the reality of the world today, people with social service needs continue to end up in the courts. Court systems across the country have realised that if defendants with social service needs are not given treatment options, those defendants will be stuck in the revolving door of justice and continue to clog the court system....Although it may not comport with the vision of success that many defence attorneys had upon entering this work, I can tell you that nothing beats seeing a sober, healthy person approach you on the street and hearing, ‘Thank you for helping me get my life back on track’ (Taylor 2016, p. 25).

In contrast to the broad and community-based approach to treatment taken by community courts, drug courts focus specifically on providing drug treatment. In the words of Judge Peggy Hora, drug treatment is “painful and difficult.” Because of this, drug courts start with external changes as their goal, but ultimately aim for internal change. This means appropriately matching participants with evidence-based treatment and using neutral language that assists, supports, and encourages participants along the way. Because relapse is such a common feature of recovery, drug courts focus on keeping people in appropriate treatment as long as necessary for them to eventually graduate from the program (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Drug court treatments have become increasingly evidence-based since the 1990s due to a growing movement toward performance measurement in the non-profit sector:

The emergence of drug courts as a reform of courts’ traditional practice of treating drug-addicted offenders in a strictly criminal fashion coincided with renewed interest in performance measurement for public organisations. The argument for measuring the performance of drug courts is compelling because they are a recent reform that must compete with existing priorities of the judicial system for a limited amount of resources. This makes it incumbent upon drug courts to demonstrate that the limited resources provided to them are used efficiently and that this expenditure of resources produces the desired outcomes in participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 1).

This movement was further strengthened by the development of a cutting edge performance measurement methodology known as the “balanced scorecard.” Created for the business sector, the balanced scorecard method aims to go beyond traditional measures of success and get a more balanced picture of performance by incorporating multiple perspectives. This method was adapted to create CourTools, a set of ten performance measures designed to evaluate a small set of key functions of trial courts (Ibid. p. 2). 

Because “the nature of addiction and the realities of substance use treatment require extended times to disposition for drug court participants,” many of the performance measures developed for conventional trial courts (such as reduced time to disposition) are not directly applicable to drug courts. However, the increased application of performance measurement to courts and the creation of CourTools in particular helped make way for the development of the first set of nationally recommended performance measures for Adult Drug Courts in 2004 (Ibid. p. 4).

Developed by a leading group of scholars and researchers brought together by the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and published for the first time in 2006, these included four key measures of drug court performance: retention; sobriety, in-program recidivism; and units of service (Ibid. p. 5).

Retention refers to the amount of time drug court participants remain in treatment. “Longer retention not only indicates success in treatment but also predicts future success in the form of lower post treatment drug use and re-offending”  (Ibid. p. 5). Sobriety – both during and after treatment –  is another important goal of drug courts. “As the participant proceeds through the program, a trend of decreasing frequency of failed [drug] tests should occur. Research has shown that increasing amounts of time between relapses is associated with continued reductions in [drug] use” (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5). In-program recidivism is the rate at which drug court participants are re-arrested during the course of their participation. This is expected to be lowered through a combination of “judicial supervision, treatment, and rewards and sanctions” unique to drug courts (Ibid. p.5; US Government and Accountability Office, 2005). Finally, units of service refers to the dosages in which drug court treatment services – including, but not limited to substance use treatment – are delivered. These are usually measured in terms of days or sessions of service provided (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 5).

Since their development, these four measures of drug court performance have been actively promoted by leading technical assistance providers like the Center for Court Innovation (CCI) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) (Ibid. p. 6). They have since been adopted and adapted by a number of states across the US. The NCSC facilitates this process, but decisions about what specifically to measure are made by the advisory committee convened by the state-level agency responsible for drug courts (Ibid). Additional performance measures used by some states relate to, for example: accountability, social functioning, processing, interaction with other agencies, compliance with quality standards, and  juvenile drug court measures, family drug court measures, and domestic violence drug court measures (Ibid. p. 10).

In 2007, the NCSC surveyed statewide drug court coordinators from across the country about their use of state-level performance measurement systems (SPMS). Out of 45 states that completed the surveys, 58% were using a SPMS in their drug courts. Most of these were adult drug courts (Ibid. p. 14). Although the frequency with which these states reported performance measurement data varied from quarterly to annually, the majority did provide data to a central agency (Ibid. p. 15). 

The development and widespread use of SPMS have helped drug courts deliver treatments that are increasingly evidence-based in the sense of consistently delivering the outcomes that their participants need. However, the NCSC survey found that the state-level performance measures used were not entirely balanced in that they typically focused more on the effectiveness of drug courts than their efficiency, productivity, or procedural satisfaction (Ibid. p. 20). The NCSC therefore recommended that a more balanced, national and uniform set of drug court performance measures be developed to measure performance more holistically and facilitate comparisons of performance across states (Ibid. p. 18).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts used outcome-based monitoring (discussed in the previous section) to continuously improve these interventions and replace interventions that have proven ineffective?

Because of their problem-solving orientation and focus on outcomes, problem-solving courts are by their nature adaptive and capable of developing new treatment modalities to meet different kinds of needs. As Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving at the Center for Court Innovation put it, “the problem-solving court environment creates a space in which there is more room for creativity. If you were to redesign the justice system now, there wouldn’t be only courts you could go to, there would be different justice mechanisms and modalities available to treat different levels of issues. Perhaps that is why new modalities develop within problem-solving courts” (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

A clear example of this creative and outcomes-based approach to improvement was the way the problem-solving dialogue process developed at the Neighbourhood Justice Center (NJC) was adapted over time to meet changing demands in the community. As Jay Jordens, a Neighbourhood Justice Office at the NJC who introduced the process explains: “different problems would arise that would demand a re-design of the court’s approach” (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

For example, the NJC began to notice that people responsible for family violence were participating in problem-solving dialogues without sharing this part of their history. In response, the NJC developed a tailored problem-solving process for people who were respondents to a family violence order in which this part of their past would be addressed from the start. The NJC also began facilitating support meetings for victims of family violence, including for example parents who were being mistreated by their children. The process was designed to solicit feedback about the new approach after victims had tried it. Eventually, it earned the support of the police in the community because it consistently delivered outcomes for a unique population (Ibid).

A second adaptation of the problem-solving process at the NJC was made when court staff noticed that many young people were opting out. Many of the court-involved young people in the Collingwood community were refugees from South Sudan who were experiencing the effects of intergenerational trauma. Realising that the process as it was originally imagined was too interrogative for this population, the NJC began holding circles with the young person, their mother, and one or two support workers. A facilitator would begin by asking humanising questions of everyone in the circle. Although the young person would often pass when it was their turn to speak, participating in the circle gave them an opportunity to listen, relax, and improve their relationships with the adults sitting in the circle with them. These problem-solving circles were designed to prioritise safety concerns and would often result in an agreement among the participants to get external support and/or attend family therapy.

Jay Jordens notes that such adaptations were possible in spite of, not because of, an operational framework of specialisation within the court that made collaboration a choice rather than an expectation among Centre staff. “We aren’t there yet where these processes are intuitive,” he explained, “we still need to actively facilitate them” (Ibid).

Because of their systematic approach to outcomes monitoring and performance measurement, drug courts have made a number of improvements to the treatment they provide as well. First and foremost, they have learned to avoid net widening: “the process of administrative or practical changes that result in a greater number of individuals being controlled by the criminal justice system” (Leone n.d.).

Specifically, drug courts have learned that putting the wrong people in the wrong places results in bad outcomes. An example of this is cherry picking the easiest cases for drug treatment: a common practice among drug courts in the early years of their development that later proved to be harmful. Evidence has shown that drug courts are most effective when they focus on treating high-risk, high-needs participants who are most likely to reoffend (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Cherry picking low-risk cases in order to inflate measures of success means putting them in more intensive treatment than they need and failing to appropriately match treatments with risk. Over time, this entraps people in the criminal justice system unnecessarily and reduces drug courts’ potential to meaningfully reduce crime (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Cherry picking low-risk cases for drug treatment has also resulted in racially biased outcomes. Because of the ways racial bias is embedded in the American criminal justice system, young white defendants have historically been more likely to be assessed as low-risk and eligible for specialised treatment than participants of colour. Participants of colour who were selected for drug court programming also tended to flunk out or leave voluntarily at higher rates than white participants.

In response to these trends, drug courts developed a toolkit on equity and inclusivity to examine the data and understand why this was happening. They introduced HEAT (Habilitation Empowerment Accountability Therapy), a new drug treatment modality geared towards young black men which was recently evaluated with very positive results. They have also worked harder generally to ensure that treatments are culturally appropriate for the different populations they serve.

Drug courts have also become more sophisticated at treating different kinds of drug addiction. The Matrix Model, for example, was developed to engage a particularly difficult population – stimulant (methamphetamine and cocaine) users – in treatment. Previously considered “untreatable” by many drug courts, stimulant users treated using the Matrix Model have shown statistically significant reductions in drug and alcohol use, risky sexual behaviors associated with HIV transmission, and improved psychological well-being in a number of studies (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020; National Institute of Drug Abuse 2020).

Drug court judges who once took a “blaming and shaming” approach have shifted towards a more people-centred one, as evidenced by changes in the language used to describe participants. In response to research in the medical sector demonstrating that people who are described as addicts receive lower quality care and fewer prescriptions, drug courts have increasingly replaced the term “addiction” with “substance use disorder” (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

In line with this shift, attitudes towards medically assisted drug treatment have also changed dramatically over the years. Whereas most drug courts previously did not allow the use of methadone in treatment, the field has now clearly adopted medically assisted treatment after finding that it was consistent with improved graduation rates, among other outcomes. Though not universally accepted, it is now considered a best practice supported by decades of research (Ibid).

On a more systematic level, a 2007 analysis of performance measurement data collected by the state of Wyoming provides an example of how drug courts have started to use this data to improve the quality of their treatments and overall impact. Based on results related to the key measures of drug court performance introduced in the previous section – retention, sobriety, in-program recidivism and units of service – the NCSC made a number of programmatic recommendations for drug courts across the state. First, they suggested that drug courts aim to support participants’ education and employment-related needs, as both attainment of a diploma and employment at admission to treatment were associated with increased graduation rates. They also recommended that additional resources be made available for young participants of colour, who were found to have higher rates of positive drug tests and recidivism than young white participants (Rubio et al. 2008, p. 17).

Innovations + Delivery Models

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts scaled their people-centered service delivery model to deliver justice outcomes for a larger population.

Many problem-solving courts across the US continue to start in the way the first problem-solving courts did: with judges deciding to do things differently. With that said, the proliferation of problem-solving courts across the country can be traced to three primary factors: science and research; technical assistance; and changes in legal education.

Research has helped bring problem-solving courts to scale by showing that the problem-solving approach to justice, if properly implemented, can be effective. Research on procedural justice and advancements in understanding of the science of addiction have been particularly important in this respect. Increased awareness of major studies in these areas have helped the field shift towards evidence-based working and helped legal professionals learn from past mistakes. More and more judges realise that relapse is part of recovery, and that mandated treatment within a drug court structure delivers positive outcomes for participants (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Once a number of problem-solving courts had been established around the country, technical assistance providers emerged to help them take a data-driven approach. This means working with communities to look at the numbers and identify the biggest crime problems they are struggling with and introducing a problem-solving court that is responsive to those issues. It also means using screening and needs assessment tools to make informed sentencing decisions and match participants to appropriate treatments. Technical assistance has helped problem-solving courts increase their impact and effectiveness and over time deliver outcomes for larger populations (Ibid).

As problem-solving courts like the Red Hook Community Justice Center have become better known, law students and young legal professionals have become more aware of and enthusiastic about problem-solving justice as an alternative to adversarial ways of working (Ibid). This represents a significant shift from the early days of problem-solving courts, when judges and lawyers alike were reluctant to embrace non-conventional conceptions of their roles as legal professionals. Prosecutors called problem-solving courts “hug-a-thug” programs. Defence attorneys resisted the idea of a court being a cure-all for their clients. Judges insisted that they “weren’t social workers” and shouldn’t be doing this kind of work (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). Service providers were concerned too: they feared that involving the justice system in treatment would ruin their client relationships.

Over time, judges have come to see that their roles could expand without violating something sacrosanct about being a judge. In 2000, the Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators adopted a resolution supporting the use of therapeutic justice principles. Since then, experience presiding over a drug court has come to be seen as a positive in judicial elections (Ibid).

Despite early concerns that problem-solving courts were “soft on crime,” prosecutors and defense attorneys have largely come on board as well. Research has demonstrated that when problem-solving courts acknowledge their gaps in knowledge and defer to service providers for clinical expertise, they can be successful in supporting treatment. As a result of advances in research, the emergence of problem-solving technical assistance, and important cultural shifts, drug and mental health courts are now widely recognised as appropriate and welcome additions to the field (Ibid). This acceptance has facilitated their spread nationally and as far as Australia and New Zealand.

Court numbers are not the only relevant measure for evaluating the extent to which problem-solving courts have successfully scaled, however. In addition to horizontal scaling of courts across the country, vertical integration of problem-solving principles and practices within particular jurisdictions is an important indicator of problem-solving courts’ spread and influence (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As explained in the introduction, the principles and practices of problem-solving justice can be and are increasingly applied by traditional justice actors and in existing, non-specialised courts. Police departments across the country are learning that they can divert defendants to treatment from the get-go, without necessarily waiting for a case to be processed through the courts (Ibid). A prominent example of police-led diversion is LEAD (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion) in Seattle, “a collaborative community safety effort that offers law enforcement a credible alternative to booking people into jail for criminal activity that stems from unmet behavioural needs or poverty” (Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, n.d.). The Seattle LEAD model was externally evaluated and found to deliver a range of positive outcomes for individuals with justice system involvement and the community (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-a). The model has been replicated successfully and is now operating in over thirty-nine counties in the US (LEAD National Support Bureau n.d.-b).

Cases that do reach court are also increasingly diverted outside of it. Prosecutors and judges who are not operating within a problem-solving court can nevertheless apply problem-solving principles by linking defendants to services and making use of alternative sentences in lieu of jail time. This “problem-solving orientation” has allowed problem-solving justice to be applied in more instances and settings without necessarily setting up new problem-solving courts. One indication that problem-solving courts have already scaled “horizontally” in the US – and that this “vertical” scaling is the latest trend – is the fact that the US government’s drug courts funding solicitation in 2020 no longer includes a category for the creation of a new drug court (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Evidence of this trend towards vertical scaling can be found as far away as Australia. As a specific alternative to horizontal replication, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) has developed resources to support judges at the Melbourne Magistrates Court to adopt a problem-solving approach to their work. Over time, this court has become a “laboratory of experimentation” for problem-solving principles and practices as well as other complementary technologies (i.e. therapeutic or procedural justice approaches)  that need to be tested before broader roll-out. In a similar vein, New York City’s courts have carried the innovative principles and practices of community courts into centralised courthouses in Brooklyn and the Bronx rather than creating more Red Hooks (Ibid).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts funded their service delivery model in a sustainable way?

Drug courts have been successful in obtaining large and sustainable streams of federal funding due to the strong research partnerships they developed from the start. Early data collection and evaluation persuaded funders that the problem-solving approach would deliver positive outcomes and save money by reducing incarceration costs. The fact that Florida Attorney General  Janet Reno – who set up the nation’s first drug court in 1989 – worked with Assistant Public Defender Hugh Rodham (7) in Miami Dade County also helped make drug courts a success and capture the attention of the federal government early on.

Importantly, federal funding for drug courts was often conditional upon their participation in rigorous evaluations. This demonstrated the effectiveness of the drug court model in a way that may not have been possible had the drug courts had to fund the research themselves, and justified their continued funding (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020). In recent years, states and counties have become a significant source of funding for drug courts as well  (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

Although the federal government has also helped fund other types of problem-solving courts, drug courts are by far the most sustainably funded. Only recently has the government made it possible for community courts to apply for direct funding, or indirect funding as subgrantees of the Center for Court Innovation. The long-term funding for many community courts is provided by local municipalities (Ibid). Funding community courts is a unique challenge because in addition to standard line items like project director and case worker salaries, they must find a way to cover less conventional expenses support for community volunteers and circle participants (often in the form of food, which the government is not willing to fund) (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

Direct federal funding for other kinds of problem-solving courts is very limited. What funding has been made available to them has gone primarily towards research and the establishment of state-level coordinators and problem-solving court infrastructure. This has helped to increase awareness of the problem-solving principles and practices at the state level and encouraged their application in different areas (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Private foundations have supported various aspects of problem-solving justice initiatives in certain parts of the country, but have not yet committed to doing so in a sustained way (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts leveraged the following sustainable financing strategies: public-private partnerships and smart (user) contributions?

Community courts in New York – including the Red Hook Community Justice Center and the Midtown Community Court – have benefitted from public-private partnerships to the extent that their planning and operations have been led by the Center for Court Innovation, a public-private partnership between the New York court system and an NGO. Over the years, these courts have also partnered with local “business improvement districts” to supervise community service mandates and offer employment opportunities to program graduates (Ibid).

Some treatment courts do also charge a nominal participant fee, which can range from $5-$20 per week (Wallace 2019). These user contributions can be used for grant matching, among other things. Charging people for their participation in problem-solving programming is generally not regarded as good practice, however (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

More broadly, problem-solving courts and community courts in particular can be said to be financially sustainable in that they often save taxpayer money (Wallace 2019). Although it takes time to realise the benefits of the upfront costs of creating and running a drug court for example, research has demonstrated that once established, the associated cost savings range from more than $4,000-$12,000 per participant (Office of National Drug Court Policy 2011). The Red Hook Community Justice Center alone was estimated to have saved local taxpayers $15 million per year (primarily) in victimisation costs that were avoided as a result of reduced recidivism (Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo 2018). The cost savings associated with problem-solving courts have helped them to continue to be competitive applicants for federal, state and local, and sometimes private grant funding over the years and in spite of changing political winds (Wallace 2019).

• Enabling environment

How and to what extent have regulatory and financial systems created/enabled by the government supported problem-solving courts and made it possible for this service/activity to scale?

Most if not all states in the US have allowed drug courts to become part of state legislation, which makes possible their continued operation (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

How and to what extent have the outcomes-based, people-centered services delivered by problem-solving courts been allowed to become the default procedure?

Problem-solving courts have not been allowed to become the default procedure in that adversarial courts and procedures remain the standard way of responding to crime in the US. In the words of Judge Hora, “There is no question that the number of people served is growing, but this remains only a drop in the bucket. For every person served there are 6-7 who aren’t” (Ibid). However, the expanding presence of problem-solving courts has helped the justice sector shift away from the excessively punitive state sentencing laws and tough-on-crime rhetoric of the late 1980s towards a more restorative and evidence-based way of working (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Problem-solving courts have enabled cultural change by demonstrating to lawyers and judges that defendants do better when they are able to access treatment, while at the same time allowing these traditional legal players to act as intermediaries and retain a gatekeeping role. As discussed in previous sections, police, prosecutors, and judges alike have grown increasingly comfortable with diverting cases from the adversarial track to community-based treatment (Ibid).

It is a paradox that the US has developed and spread the problem-solving courts model as the country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Former Senior Advisor of Training and Technical Assistance at the Center for Court Innovation, Julius Lang, speculates that this punitive backdrop is what has allowed alternatives to incarceration to flourish in the US and become so highly developed. At the same time, countries with lower baseline penalties that have set up problem-solving courts, such as Canada and Australia, have developed creative means of engaging defendants who need treatment since there is less of a threat of incarceration (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts stimulated (or benefitted from) investment into justice research and development?

Problem-solving courts have both stimulated and benefited from investment into justice research and development. As discussed in the previous sections, the success of problem-solving courts in the US can be attributed in large part to their strong research partnerships. 

From the start, “problem-solving courts always took responsibility for their own research and their own outcomes” (Ibid). Problem-solving justice initiatives run by the Center for Court Innovation, for example, always worked directly with researchers. This produced a huge amount of evaluation literature, which was important for securing the buy-in and funding necessary to continue operating (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020). 

The fact that federal funding has incentivised high-quality evaluations has also gone a long way to build a foundation of evidence demonstrating drug courts’ effectiveness (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

Leadership + Pathways

How and to what extent have justice sector leaders’ skills and collaborations enabled/hindered problem-solving courts to increase access to justice by delivering the outcomes people need at scale.

Strong leadership has been essential to problem-solving courts’ ability to deliver the treatment outcomes people need at scale. Without the leadership of visionary judges and other leaders aiming to do things differently, they would never have come into existence in the first place. 

Because of the tendency to maintain the status quo, individual problem-solving courts also rarely get off the ground without a strong champion. The reason for this can be traced to problem-solving principles and practices themselves: the goal is not to force people to change, but to make them change because they want to. In the same way, effective leaders can persuade system actors that problem-solving justice is the way to achieve common goals (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 14, 2020).

Community courts in particular require strong leadership. This can sometimes pose problems for the courts’ long-term stability. For example, a community court in North Liverpool was championed by prominent national politicians. Their leadership was important for the court’s establishment and initial funding, but changes in national leadership and the lack of local support were major factors in the court’s ultimate closure (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

As mentioned above, community courts may struggle when their early champions move on. To avoid this and prepare for the eventual departure of the personalities who are driving change, it is important to put the courts’ internal ways of working into writing. As previously discussed, it is also necessary to obtain evidence that the court’s approach works, as this is a more important driver of funding than good leadership in the long-run (B. Taylor, personal communication, October 5, 2020).

Mid-level leadership within problem-solving courts also matters. Since staff are often employed and supervised by various partner agencies – rather than the director of the project as a whole – it is particularly important that they be selected with care, trained in the project’s mission, policies and practices, and incentivised to work as part of a single team (J. Jordens, personal communication, October 19, 2020).

How and to what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/benefited from new high-level strategies or pathways towards people-centred justice in the US?

High-level strategies at the state level and in the form of technical assistance have benefitted problem-solving courts significantly by facilitating their replication. This is particularly true of drug courts, for which state-wide coordination mechanisms were set up at an early stage.

Recognising that substance use disorder was a major problem, and persuaded by the same research as federal legislators, state officials began to set up mechanisms that would allow them to receive federal drug court funding. This also allowed them to strategise about which counties would most benefit from drug courts (or other problem-solving courts), and which standards to impose. 

Together, state-wide coordination mechanisms created an infrastructure for the improvement and replication of drug courts nationwide, and made it easier to apply problem-solving practices and principles in new settings. Whereas trainings on brain science and what’s working in treatment used to be reserved for drug court judges, there are now few states that do not include them in judicial training for all new judges. The same can be said for trainings for prosecutors, defence attorneys, and service providers (P. Hora, personal communication, October 16, 2020).

The emergence of technical assistance providers specialising in problem-solving justice such as the Center for Court Innovation, Justice System Partners, the National Center for State Courts, and the Justice Management Institute have also helped problem-solving courts to coordinate and replicate in strategic ways. By developing listservs and organising conferences, these organisations have enabled people in various problem-solving courts to support each other across state and international lines. Over time, these efforts have created shared principles and legitimacy around the movement for problem-solving justice (J. Lang, personal communication, October 28, 2020).

To what extent have problem-solving courts contributed to/played a role in a broader paradigm shift towards people-centered justice?

As mentioned in the introduction, a fifth key feature of the problem-solving orientation is system change. By educating justice system stakeholders about the nature of behavioural problems that often underlie crime and aiming to reach the maximum number of cases within a given jurisdiction, problem-solving courts seek to make broader impact within the justice system and community (Porter, Rempel and Mansky 2010, p. 32-33).

Since the first drug court was set up in 1989, legal professionals have become increasingly aware that many people with social problems end up in the justice system: a system that was never intended to address those problems. Problem-solving courts have contributed to a broader paradigm shift towards people-centred justice to the extent that they have helped these professionals:

• Acknowledge this issue;
• Recognise that lawyers are not equipped to deal with this issue (American law schools do not prepare them to);
• Connect with service providers in the community;
• Leverage the coercive power of the justice system in a positive way;
• Encourage success in treatment programs using procedural justice.

By taking a collaborative approach to decision-making, delivering individualised justice for each participant while at the same time holding them accountable, educating staff, engaging the broader community, and working to produce better outcomes for people, problem-solving courts have demonstrated what people-centred criminal justice can look like in the US and around the world.

View additional information

(1) Methadone is a synthetic opioid used to treat opioid dependence. Taking a daily dose of methadone in the form of a liquid or pill helps to reduce the cravings and withdrawal symptoms of opioid dependent individuals.

(2) “A screening tool is a set of questions designed to evaluate an offender’s risks and needs fairly quickly…An assessment tool is a more thorough set of questions administered before an offender is matched to a particular course of treatment or service.” Taylor 2016, p. 7.

(3) “The main monitoring tool community courts use is compliance hearings, in which participants are periodically required to return to court to provide updates on their compliance.” Taylor, 2016, p. 9.

(4) “Community courts have promoted the use of technology to improve decision-making. Technology planners created a special information system for the Midtown Community Court to make it easy for the judge and court staff to track defendants…Information that’s reliable, relevant, and up-to-date is essential for judges to make the wisest decisions they can.” Taylor 2016, p. 12-13.

(5) In community courts, “judges often speak directly to the offender, asking questions, offering advice, issuing reprimands, and doling out encouragement. This reflects an approach known as procedural justice…Its key components, according to Yale Professor Tom Tyler, are voice, respect, trust/neutrality, and understanding.” Taylor 2016, p. 15.

(6) “Community courts emphasize working collaboratively with the community, arguing that the justice system is stronger, fairer, and more effective when the community is invested in what happens inside the courthouse.” Taylor 2016, p. 22.

(7) Hugh Rodham was the brother of Hillary Clinton, who would become the First Lady a few years later.

View References

Amanda Cissner and Michael Rempel. (2005).  The State of Drug Court Research: Moving Beyond ‘Do They Work?’ , Center for Court Innovation.

Brett Taylor. (2016). Lessons from Community Courts: Strategies on Criminal Justice Reform from a Defense Attorney . Center for Court Innovation, p. 3.

Cheryl Wright, (n.d.). Tackling Problem-Solving Issues Across the Country . National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Cynthia Lee, Fred Cheesman, David Rottman, Rachael Swaner, Suvi Lambson, Michael Rempel and Ric Curtis. (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center . National Center for State Courts, Center for Court Innovation, p.1.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Four) . Justice Speakers Institute.

David Wallace. (2019). Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part One) . Justice Speakers Institute.  

Dawn Marie Rubio, Fred Cheesman and William Federspiel. (2008). Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art . National Center for State Courts, Volume 6, p. 1.

George Mair and Matthew Millings. (2011). Doing Justice Locally: The North Liverpool Community Justice Centre . Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.

Halsey and de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review, 27(4).

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 5, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 14, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Brett Taylor, Senior Advisor for Problem-Solving Justice, Center for Court Innovation, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Jay Jordens, Education Program Manager – Therapeutic Justice, Judicial College of Victoria, October 19, 2020.

Interview with Judge Peggy Hora, President, Justice Speakers Institute, October 16, 2020.

Interview with Julius Lang, Senior Advisor, Training and Technical Assistance, Center for Court Innovation, October 28, 2020.

Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) , King County.

LEAD National Support Bureau, (n.d.). Evaluations . 

LEAD National Support Bureau. (n.d.). LEAD: Advancing Criminal Justice Reform in 2020 .

Mark Halsey and Melissa de Vel-Palumbo. (2018). Courts As Empathetic Spaces: Reflections on the Melbourne Neighbourhood Justice Centre . Griffith Law Review 27 (4). 

Matthew Leone, Net widening , Encyclopaedia of Crime and Punishment, SAGE Reference.

National Institute of Drug Abuse (2020). The Matrix Model (Stimulants) , Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide

Office of National Drug Court Policy. (2011). Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice .

Rachel Porter, Michael Rempel and Adam Mansky. (2010). What Makes a Court Problem-Solving? Universal Performance Indicators for Problem-Solving Justice . Center for Court Innovation, p. 1

Red Hook Justice News. (2016).  Bridging the Gap: Youth, Community and Police . 

Sarah Matusek. (2017). Justice Center celebrates Bridging the Gap birthday . The Red Hook Star Revue. 

Sarah Murray and Harry Blagg. (2018). Reconceptualising Community Justice Centre Evaluations – Lessons from the North Liverpool Experience . Griffith Law Review 27 (2).

Suzanne Strong and Tracey Kyckelhahn. (2016).  Census of Problem-Solving Courts, 2012 . Bureau of Justice Statistics.

US Government and Accountability Office, 2005.

Table of Contents

• Case Studies:
• Casas De Justicia Colombia
• Local Council Courts in Uganda
• LegalZoom in the US
• The Justice Dialogue
• Methodology

The Justice Dashboard is powered by HiiL. We deliver user-friendly justice. For information about our work, please visit www.hiil.org

The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law Tel: +31 70 762 0700 E-mail: [email protected]

• Solving & preventing
• Justice services
• Data by country

Privacy Overview

BJu Tijdschriften

• Abonnementen
• Law and Method
• november, 2019
• Using Case Studies for Research on Judicial Opinions. Some Prelimin...
• november 2019
• Artikel Using Case Studies for Research on Judicial Opinions. Some Preliminary Insights

Citeerwijze van dit artikel: Mateusz Stępień, ‘Using Case Studies for Research on Judicial Opinions. Some Preliminary Insights’, 2019, oktober-december, DOI: 10.5553/REM/.000045

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

• 1. Introduction

Judicial opinions are not only central to legal practice and education, but they also play an important role in the scientific reflection on law. However, while judicial opinions are undoubtedly of immense value in legal research, it should be noted that previous studies on judicial opinions have been conducted mainly under a doctrinal approach. Research was carried out to prescribed sets of methods and goals, with established ways of how interpretation, and comparative and historical analyses, should be approached. The American legal realist movement of the 20th century (amongst their ranks, most notably Jerome Frank and Karl Llewellyn) outlined new unmasking research goals to examine judicial opinions. However, they did not propose any new ways to analyse them methodically, nor did their successors. It is only since the 1980s that the legal sciences have developed a growing interest in empirical studies on judicial opinions. The problem is that, in order to expand the scope of research goals in this area, it is necessary to develop specific methodological approaches and research tools. So far, not one published monograph, nor even a review article, deals in any comprehensive way with the methodological issues related to research on judicial opinions. General works on empirical legal research (e.g., Epstein, Martin 2014; Leeuw, Schmeets 2016) are too broad and do not take into account the specifics of judicial opinions. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop a research methodology for studying judicial opinions that goes beyond both dogmatic analysis and the established positions developed within the philosophy of law and legal theory (e.g., the hermeneutic and argumentative approaches). We also need to ask whether it is possible to adopt or modify methodologies developed within empirically oriented social sciences. Most social science textbooks devoted to the methodology of empirical research deal with case studies. A case study is a flexible and broad approach, a research strategy (e.g., Creswell 2003: 15; Yin 2014: 5, 20), but certainly not a research technique. The practice of carrying out case studies has undergone many changes over the last hundred years and refers to a higher level of research than just the way in which data is collected. There are single case studies, examining only one case, multi-case studies, examining several cases, and comparative case studies (e.g., Bartlett, Vavrus 2017), which are a kind of multi-case study whereby each of the examined cases exhibit certain different features that can serve as a basis for comparison. The following considerations will be primarily focused on a single case study, as a starting point. Although no methodological standpoint is neutral, case studies are often treated as being in clear opposition to a strongly positivist vision of practicing social science. In this vein, case studies, by focusing on small areas and looking at particulars in detail, can provide a way of challenging a view of the social world based on aggregated data. However, as we shall see, the use of case studies in research is far more complex that it seems, and different types of case studies match the non-positivist vision to varying degrees. One of the biggest attractions of using case study research is that, by its very nature, it requires combining a number of different research techniques (an approach commonly recommended in social science research). Conversely, it should also be remembered that case studies are commonly criticised for being unscientific, lacking precision, relying too much on researchers’ subjectivity and not having a sufficiently restrictive research framework (see the summary of those critical voices in: Gerring 2007: 6-7 and Flyvbjerg 2006; Argyrou 2017: 103-104). While examining the validity of these criticisms is not the subject of this text, it is important to note that choosing case study research, with its emphasis on knowing more about a smaller area, always involves a trade-off. However, despite this, case studies have become an established practice for research and reflection on methodology within the social sciences. Within the scope of this inquiry, the key question is whether case study research is appropriate for judicial opinions. The fact that case study research can be carried out in a variety of ways, taking into account the specifics of individual research disciplines, is encouraging. Additionally, the overall preference for qualitative techniques within case study research has barely been explored for empirical studies on judicial opinions. So far, none of the case study research frameworks developed within the social sciences have been applied directly to judicial opinions, although they have been used for some empirical legal research studies (e.g., Leeuw, Schmeets 2016: 112-114; Webley 2016; Mushkat 2017; Argyrou 2017; Miller 2018). Moreover, a review of the legal science literature shows that there are some studies on judicial opinions where the authors have directly referred to their research as case studies. Whether or to what extent those studies correspond exactly to what is defined as a case study within the social sciences will be questioned later in this article. The point here is that this provides positive evidence that case study research for judicial opinions is worth pursuing in more depth. In legal studies, there is also a so-called case method, which serves as a didactic tool (e.g., Yin 2014: 5; Dhar, Dhar 2018). Here, the analysis of specific cases or an individual judicial opinion is carried out for the purpose of teaching law. Although this is different from using case studies as a research methodology, it shares the rationale that a broad, contextual analysis of a given legal case (e.g., case, court opinion) has its distinct advantages. Going further, there are clear similarities between case studies and certain features of the way lawyers analyse and study cases. Based on the aforementioned findings, case study research would appear to have potential for use with judicial opinions. If this is the case, how and to what extent can case study methodology developed within the social sciences be fruitfully used to examine judicial opinions? By fruitful , I mean that it meets the requirements of a case study and that it brings new knowledge about judicial opinions. In order to examine the issues related to the use of case study research on judicial opinions, we must take into account the specifics of both using case studies as a research strategy and judicial opinions as a specific area of research. This article will also consider some previous legal studies on judicial opinions where authors referred to their research directly as case studies. This will raise a question as to what extent these attempts meet the criteria for case studies developed within the social sciences. The presented analyses suggest that plenty of research on judicial opinions conducted in legal academy are only selectively in line with the full-grown case study methodology of the social sciences. Finally, the article is also aimed at encouraging legal researchers to critically and reflectively search for inspiration within the methodologies of the empirical social sciences .

• 2. Basic Types of Case Study

Characterising case studies is not an easy task. As a starting point, we shall examine the key features of three types of case studies developed within the social sciences (see, e.g., Bartlett, Vavrus 2017: 28-37).

Intensive case studies focus on a small research area (small-N). They are based on a belief that accurate knowledge of a small area is more valuable than flat knowledge about the whole. Recalling classic examples, the research object could be, for example, one city, one teenage criminal, two street gangs, or five families. In intensive case studies, selected cases are subjected to an in-depth and comprehensive analysis on the basis of a wide variety of sources. Such studies are carried out in situ , in a natural environment, taking into account the local colour. Broad and flexible questions are formulated that often regard the macro-social level (e.g., ‘How does the economic crisis affect families?’). Intensive case studies can be placed within the soft positivist paradigm of practicing science: Case findings can usually, to some extent, be generalised to a wider population; the research is relatively highly structured and may include research questions aimed at the development of theory and it may incorporate quantitative as well as qualitative techniques. From the other end of the spectrum, intensive case studies, focusing on a small research area, allow an openness to new hypotheses and questions, as well as appreciating the perspectives of different social actors.

Interpretive case studies stand in stark opposition to the operationalism, positivism and hegemony of quantitative research techniques. They also express fundamental doubts about fitting what is happening here and now within a schema of abstract categories and generalities (universalistic theories). Interpretive case studies strongly emphasise the idiosyncratic nature of each case and its context (‘[the] case itself is of interest’; Stake 1994: 237). This type of a case often relies heavily on qualitative techniques designed for capturing the complexity of the object under study. Diversity within the case is key. The narrow focus within a small research area is aimed at grasping the unique characteristics and conditions of a given phenomenon, not at serving generalisations.

Exploratory case studies are often used to try out an approach, concept, theory or research tool on a given area. The objectives may be methodological (checking and improving research tools), theoretical (testing or developing a theory or concept in relation to a narrow area) or cognitive (learning about a given case through the use of a specific tool). Theoretical and methodological objectives can both be described as technical . In this sense, exploratory case studies are focused , dealing only with those aspects of the case examined through the chosen testing tool. This highly structured type of research, devoid of any connections with the anti-positivist, interpretive tradition, rarely utilises qualitative techniques. Narrowing the focus of research allows the researcher to apply non-simplistic theoretical or methodological tools within a narrow case. Within these confines, researchers are still required to explore the complexity of the case and show its context from different analytical perspectives, as well as critically reflect on the use of tools and constructs.

The most important differences between the aforementioned three types of case studies relate to (1) whether the research is generalisation oriented or not, (2) whether the research is theory oriented or not, (3) how the research is justified in relation to its focus on a small area, (4) what is the scale of the structuring of research and (5) what are the depth and range of the research techniques considered. Using a case study perspective in research requires clarifying which of these types has been selected and why.

• 3. The Main Characteristics of Case Study Research

Not all studies focused on small areas are case studies (Gerring 2007: 6); additional conditions must be met. In reconstructing those conditions, it is helpful to recall selected definitions of a case study (see Table 1; emphasis mine). In spite of the differences between these definitions, four interrelated characteristics of case studies can be distinguished, although particular types of case study show certain characteristics to a lesser or greater extent.

(1) In a typical case study, the subject of research is limited to a small, defined area. There may be one case, as in single case studies, or several, as in multiple case studies. The emphasis on singleness and particularit y is the foundation of this research approach. The greater the scope and scale of the project, the less justified it is to use case study research and the lower the chance of obtaining satisfactory results. This focus on a specific case has various justifications. There are three that seem most important when describing case studies. In a case of epistemological justification, the thought is to know more about less rather than less about more . The goal is to study a smaller but well-defined subject more accurately and in greater detail. There is also the notion that small phenomena are best studied in their natural surroundings. When referring to ontological justification, the suggestion is that the social world consists of systemically related localities . This emphasis on particularity presupposes that each case has important atypical characteristics, happenings, relationships and situations. In turn, according to pragmatic justification , in some respects it is easier and more effective to explore a smaller area. Focusing only on a small area allows more time and effort to be devoted to researching the subject, as well as increases the chances of ending up with results that are not oversimplified. Proponents of case studies emphasise the role of all these justifications, while advocates of intensive and interpretive case studies mainly focus on the first two. It is only for exploratory case studies that pragmatic justifications assume far more importance. In case study research, the key issue is the choice of the case(s) to be examined. The reasons for isolating a given area as a case will vary, but they should always be clearly articulated and well justified. The literature does not provide any explicit description of what a case is or should be. Most often all that is indicated is that a case should constitute a ‘bounded system’. Amongst cases, we can distinguish (see. e.g., Thomas 2011) (1) typical cases , where the analysis allows, for example, a contextual and detailed study of a portion of a wider population; (2) atypical cases , characterised by certain unique features and/or configurations, as well as a specific relation to an environment and (3) extreme cases , which are significantly different from other cases due to some particular and well-defined characteristics. To better understand what a case study is, it is first necessary to distinguish the object (or analytical framework) from its subject (Wieviorka 1992: 159; Thomas 2011: 512). The subject of a given case could be described as an example, an instance or a representation of what is under investigation. Next, a case study usually implies the existence of something broader (phenomenally or intellectually). The case is always a case of something wider – some phenomenon, problem, dilemma or approach – to which it attempts to apply a tool. That is the object (or analytical framework).

(2) A case study focuses on a small area in order for the research to be intense, in-depth and multifaceted . Intense means cumulative interest in a small area in the long term, including focusing on details and internal diversity. In-depth studies mean going beyond what is obvious and visible on the surface. Multifaceted is simply examining a case from different angles, using different perspectives and assumptions. With intensive and interpretive case studies, the focus is generally on comprehensive case analyses, while with exploratory case studies, the focus is commonly on the analysis of a single aspect.

(3) One of the main characteristics of a case study is to examine a given case in its natural environment . Case studies aim to obtain knowledge that is least distorted by prior conceptualisation and that takes due account of the role of context. The researcher, while focusing on a small area, should have direct access to observe the subject in action, in its unique context. Importantly, in case study research, the context and findings of a given case cannot be separated. The exception is with technical exploratory case studies, where the requirement for examining cases in their natural environments must be relaxed.

(4) Intensive, in-depth and multifaceted analyses require the use of many diverse sources of information (data) and research techniques . In a case study, the number and types of techniques should be guided by the complexity of the case being studied. Each study needs to be evaluated according to its needs; there are no definitive lists. Exploratory case studies are very specific, so the use of research tools will be limited from the outset. Interpretive case studies, on the other hand, are open to the wide use of many different techniques. With intensive and interpretive case studies, qualitative techniques play an important role in capturing the context of a given case. Their use is also justified because the scope of quantitative techniques may be severely limited with small samples. However, this does not exclude using quantitative techniques within case studies. For example, in a classic, pioneering case study regarding industrialisation in the town of Muncie, Indiana, the research was based on in-depth interviews, direct observations, registers of books in library and surveys (Lynd, Lynd 1929/1956: 3).

• 4. The Main Characteristics of Judicial Opinions

Examining the utility of using the case study methodology developed within the social sciences to examine judicial opinions calls for a deeper understanding of judicial opinions. Surprisingly, they are rarely defined, either in legal acts or in literature. In the most general terms, a judicial opinion is an official document that, in most jurisdictions, is delivered on the basis of legal provisions, is prepared by a judge(s) (most often with the assistance of clerks) and contains considerations that are directly related to the material content of the decision (the judgement). The problem is that this relation to the judgement is complex, multilayered and diverse. It often depends on many factors, including the features of a given legal culture, the functions that judicial opinions fulfil within that particular legal culture (e.g., Wells 1994) or even the personal writing style of a judge (e.g., Posner 1995). All this aside, judicial opinions can be understood as a kind of narrative created by judges. Such a narrative justifies the conducted proceeding and the decision that was made (Kahn 2017). According to J. B. White, the judicial opinion ‘explains or justifies the result and, in the process, it connects the case with the cautions, the specific facts with more general concerns’ (1995: 1367). In such a context, a judicial opinion is a way of framing a material decision. In practice, judicial opinions are generally influenced by their institutional nature. Their form, content and the ways in which they were created have to be understood in this context. Many of the often ritualised elements they share are expressions of specific legal cultures, the professional socialisation of judges and the requirements of the legal institution. Moreover, judicial opinions inherit judicial authority. They are related to the exercise of power, and at the same time, form part of the legitimacy of that power (especially with regard to democratic regimes). Arguments within opinions can be targeted in varying degrees towards the parties in a case, other judges, other courts, the legal environment and/or political power holders.

• 5. Difficulties in Examining Judicial Opinions

Before we go any further, it is worth considering the conditions and limitations in using case study research to examine judicial opinions. The most important causes of general difficulties are as follows:

(1) A judicial opinion is a type of document and so is mostly textual. Certain research techniques, such as in-depth interviews and observations, are obviously not appropriate. However, there are research advantages – the subject is fixed and stable and there are many established tools and methods available for analysing discourse, narratives and text.

(2) Judges tend to not fully express the true reasons behind their opinions (see, e.g., Cohen 2015). This phenomenon, to some extent inherent in the process of delivering judicial opinions, can lead to distortions in reporting. While in itself an important and fascinating research subject, the point to make here is that the specificity of creating judicial opinions makes them very difficult to study. The key reasons for this problem are that judges have to model their reasoning and their chosen form of a narrative within a collective decision-making process. The writing of judicial opinion is also influenced by the judge’s evaluation as a decision maker as to how the opinion may be interpreted by other courts. On these grounds, a judge may choose to include selected content because it fits within accepted conventions, deliberately omitting other content that is harder to explain or justify. Moreover, judges are interested in defending their judicial opinions and not exposing themselves to negative consequences (e.g., disciplinary proceedings). This can lead to the aforementioned distortions. Last but not the least, there are general (existential) difficulties with articulating decisional premises by discursive, linguistic tools (see Frank 1948; see Stępień 2019). An example of this is where a judge finds it difficult to articulate problems faced when balancing principles and weighing values. More generally, C. M. Oldfather argued that writing judicial opinions might sometimes ‘lead thought astray’ (2008: 1286). Moreover, the highly ritualised form and content of judicial opinion can also result in a lack of judicial candor (see e.g. Fallon 2017).

(3) Judicial opinions are created behind closed doors . As the process is not totally transparent, it is not easy to reconstruct. It can be even further complicated in situations where a panel of judges may agree on the substance of the decision but not on the reasons, so elements of the opinion may be a compromise acceptable to the majority. Any research, including case study research, on how judicial opinions are created that goes beyond their form and content would require access to the decision makers, the clerks and the courts. In practical terms, this can generally be achieved only to a very limited extent.

• 6. Using Case Studies to Examine Judicial Opinions

Using case study research to examine judicial opinions should take into account the specificity of both the case studies and the judicial opinions. It is important to show all the different roles that judicial opinions can play within case study research. The first consideration is how many (and to what extent) of the four features of case studies (see Section 3 above) can be accomplished in studies on judicial opinions. A negative response to any of these would have serious consequences when it comes to using this research perspective. It is also necessary to take into account the different types of case studies and how each of these would suit different aspects of research.

Case Studies Are Not Always Needed and Applicable

Empirical research using judicial opinions as a form of a case study should never be a default methodological choice. With some projects, case studies are not required for the successful implementation of research plans. With others, research configurations may make it impossible to successfully employ case studies to examine judicial opinions.

(1) In general, there is no need to use case studies when research questions can be answered with a purely quantitative approach. For example, issues related to the decision-making process: voting agreement, participation, coalition size, dissenting opinions or the influence of political preferences. The same applies to problems related directly to judicial opinions, such as length of legal opinions, reasoning styles, cognitive complexity of judicial opinions or citations.

Having said this, it still may be possible to use case study research in situations where quantitative techniques are generally used. For instance, a researcher interested in the cognitive complexity of judicial opinions, in a given jurisdiction or type of court, say, could use computational tools to gather qualitative data from hundreds or thousands of opinions. Of course, the issues of cognitive complexity, along with the other aforementioned problems, could also be incorporated into a broader subject, which then becomes the subject of a case study, so extending the scope of the analysis and reaching to other sources of data . Another approach could be to design a case study research on the cognitive complexity of judicial opinions of one or many judges (e.g., in the atypical version of a case study, and even in comparative atypical case studies), in which the requirements of this perspective will be met to a large extent. The aim of such studies would be different from that of the approaches using quantitative techniques. For example, focusing attention on a given case will allow the researcher to investigate the factors and conditions determining the (small or large) cognitive complexity of a specific judicial opinion. At a meta level, it would allow to take a fresh look at the results of research on the basis of data aggregation. It is not difficult to notice that both the approaches – based on quantitative techniques and case study research, respectively – can be complementary. Choosing one of them depends on the general preferences, goals and adopted research objectives of the researcher.

(2) Further reflection on using case study research to examine judicial opinions requires mentioning the main features of case studies once again. It is important whether, and if so, to what extent, a research strategy with such defined goals can be applied to judicial opinions. The point here is to look at how case studies are used from the perspective of limitations (and opportunities) inherent in judicial opinions.

A. The emphasis on particularity in research on judicial opinions can be considered in at least two dimensions. First, it means focusing on those characteristics of judicial opinions that are difficult to capture when using only quantitative approaches ( particularity as detail ). Second, it is also important to examine how deeply a given opinion is rooted in specific conditions, a specific configuration of elements and a given background ( particularity as uniqueness or idiosyncrasy ). The attention here is on recognising the particularity of a judicial opinion in a given place and time. It should be stressed that there are major difficulties here when examining judicial opinions. The way opinions are created, their effects on legal institutions and the entire legal system, as well as ritualisation of their forms and content, significantly reduce the possibility of using case study research due to its requirement of particularity . The scale of this restriction varies depending on the type of case study considered. Focusing on a narrow area, a case may play a different role in a case study research plan. For example, supporting generalisations through particular examples, characteristic of intensive case studies, maybe a goal. In turn, employing an interpretive case study, where the particular case lies at the heart of inquiry, would not be easy. As documents, judicial opinions do not leave much room for such qualitative studies, unless the scope of research is extended beyond their content (wide case studies). With exploratory studies, focusing on a narrow area allows the researcher to test tools, concepts or theories. The requirement of particularity comes down to an accurate identification of the conditions and variables affecting their application to a specific judicial opinion. In exploratory studies, the requirement for particularity is quite easy to obtain. As an example, consider the article of T. Bench-Capon and H. Prakken, entitled ‘A Case Study of Hypothetical and Value-Based Reasoning in the US Supreme-Court cases’ (2010). In fact, their work deals with applying selected AI and law tools to a few cases, in particular to a judicial opinion in the California v. Carney case, 471 U.S. 386 (1985). This approach is similar to an exploratory case study in its technical version. The whole argument is based on a demonstration of how certain tools can be used and what purpose they serve.

B. Another characteristic of a case study – to provide an intense, thorough and comprehensive analysis of a given case – can to some extent be used in research on judicial opinions. Although analysing just documents limits the scope, text can be examined from different perspectives, through various cognitive lenses , and taking into account many of its dimensions (e.g., narrative, cultural, linguistic, rhetorical). Interpretive case studies are the most difficult to use from this perspective. Lack of guidelines and predetermined research structures are serious barriers here. Intensive case studies could be implemented, especially, where the investigation goes beyond the text of judicial opinion itself. However, due to the particularity requirement, by far, the most suitable are exploratory case studies. In the social sciences, studies in which a given case is analysed comprehensively on several levels are very common. This could also be said of case studies in the legal sciences. M. A. Nicholson’s research on libel law in England (2000) conforms largely to the classical framework of the legal sciences. The paper concerns the well-known libel suit filed by McDonald’s Corporation against environmental activists ( McDonald’s Corporation v. Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366). The subject of Nicholson’s interest is a lawsuit, a case, not the judicial opinion associated with it. A very detailed analysis of the case, along with its context and the judicial opinion delivered in the case, occupies more than 140 pages. The considerations are very broad; they include the history of libel law, along with numerous references to previous court disputes and comparative law issues (including European law). The text also contains many references to the narrative about this case from the popular press. In Nicholson’s research, we find no direct references to case studies. This is a perfect example of an intense, in-depth, comprehensive analysis of a given case. Although carried out in accordance with the traditions of the legal sciences, it meets the requirements of intensity and comprehensiveness for case studies within the social sciences.

C. The third characteristic of a case study, conducting research in its natural environment, is not generally easy to attain when examining judicial opinions. There are obvious limitations to in situ research of a given judicial opinion, especially when using case studies focused exclusively on judicial opinions (narrow case studies). It only becomes possible when the subject of the study goes beyond judicial opinions. Due to this criterion, it would be difficult to carry out either an intensive or an interpretive case study. Again, exploratory case studies are the easiest to implement. Another issue that needs to be discussed is the role of context concerning judicial opinions. The institutional context can be initially distinguished. Judicial opinions are specific documents, created inside the legal institution and performing a role in its functioning. While it is possible to reconstruct the institutional context, this would require a broad knowledge of law and legal institutions. In contrast, the context of existing cases is relatively easy to access and is often explored in the legal sciences. The context of existing cases refers to all judicial opinions to which references are made (explicitly or implicitly) in a given opinion, and which enable the reader to understand the author’s reasoning in such an opinion. Finally, we have the external context created by the social, cultural economic and political conditions that are necessary to fully understand a judicial opinion. It often serves as tacit knowledge for those involved in the case (actors). Over time, however, access to this knowledge generally decreases. Such external context may be narrow, closely related to a given case (e.g., political pressure, the situation of the parties), or broad, regarding more general processes at a given place and time (e.g., cultural swings, public opinion). The external context of judicial opinions is available from many sources for research. The research work of D. L. Threedy (2009) shows that emphasising the broad context of a particular case can become the very goal of research carried out within a case study perspective. Her paper describes the case of United States v. Hatahley 351 U.S. 173 (1956), which concerned a group of Navajos Indians. In the described case, Navajos Indians demanded compensation on the basis of the Federal Tort Claims Act in connection with ‘the destruction of over one hundred horses and burros’ (2009: 3). In her work, Threedy uses ‘legal archeology’ in order to ‘to reconstruct the historical, social, and economic context of the litigation’. So shedding light upon the complex context of that particular case lies at the heart of Threedy’s inquiry.

D. The final characteristic of a case study, using many sources of information ( data ) and research techniques, can be widely gained in relation to judicial opinions. Within the social sciences new qualitative tools, such as Critical Analysis, Qualitative Data Analysis and Framing Analysis, and quantitative tools, such as Content Analysis (which also can be used within the qualitative approaches; see Hall, Wright 2008) and Computational Analysis, have been developed specifically for textual studies. Access to other text analysis tools has also improved significantly in recent decades (e.g., QueryTermAnalyzer, OpenNLP, General Architecture for Text Engineering). They can all be equally used for legal studies, including research on judicial opinions.

Currently, there is a wide catalogue of sources of data about judicial opinions available to researchers. A great example of using non-obvious sources of data is the case study carried out by H. J. Knowles (2012). The subject of Knowles’s interest was the famous case regarding the constitutionality of the state statute introducing minimum wages in Washington State, culminating in a precedent ruling – West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish , 300 U.S. 379 (1937). The aim of the study was to look more closely at the plaintiff in this case, Elsie Parrish, and to reconstruct how the whole case was seen by the inhabitants of Washington D.C. Thus, the external context of the case was examined along with judicial opinion. The work compares narratives from the judicial opinion with those from the media. In her research, Knowles uses the ‘local newspaper, the original court documents, and the information provided by the West Coast Hotel Company’. Note the diverse range of sources, which go far beyond the analysis of the content of the opinion. It should be emphasised that the material Knowles used for her research was applicable even though many years had passed since the case took place in 1937. Although the research techniques developed in the social sciences were not applied methodically for this research, it is difficult to disregard Knowles’s effort to be consistent with the spirit of case studies.

• 7. The Subject and Analytical Framework of Case Studies

By carrying out a case study, judicial opinions can be subjected to various research configurations. There are case studies in which judicial opinions are analysed, but the examined case is not directly a judicial opinion. It may be, for example, the judge, or a particular court, lawsuit or dispute. However, such examples are generally marginalised in literature. The reason for this: every judicial opinion is considered a separate document, and so, by definition, is a closed whole. Consequently, it is determined to be a case in itself when considered for case study research. It can be stated that there are four basic research models that could be applied to judicial opinions (see Table 2). Through the use of the subject (narrow or wide) and the analytical framework (covers only judicial opinions or goes beyond judicial opinions), it can be determined how the different case study research models could fit with different types of research on judicial opinions.

(1) In the first model, both the subject and the analytical framework apply only to judicial opinions. In such narrow studies on judicial opinions , all the research is carried out on documents. In general, intensive and interpretive case studies, where the subject does not go beyond the content of a judicial opinion, are difficult to carry out. Exploratory case studies are the most suitable for this model, both in their technical and cognitive versions, because they do not require diverse data collection and allow the researcher to focus on one selected aspect of a given case. Note that a narrow case study on judicial opinions is the closest to research practice developed in the legal sciences. But, in most instances, such endeavours do not meet all the aforementioned characteristics of the case study research developed in the social sciences. There are some legal case studies developed alongside the social sciences that share some of their characteristics of this model. A perfect example is a study by C. Rountree (2001) concerning the ‘strategic representation of motives’ in Korematsu v. U.S. , 323 U.S. 214 (1944), which allowed the U.S. government to put Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II. Although the term case study does not appear in the title or in the text, it has many characteristics of a case study. Rountree analysed both the majority opinion and dissenting opinions in the Korematsu case. The analytical framework is how the relationship between the actors (Japanese Americans) and the scene (America at war) was dealt with in the judicial opinions, and Korematsu was the subject of this case study. Korematsu is seen as an extreme example of where the scene displaces the actors . Rountree used a series of soft analyses well practiced in the legal sciences (analysis of previous cases, critical analysis of the literature, reconstruction of the historical background) but complemented by interpretations using Kenneth Burke’s literary theory tools. In many ways, his research is a model example of a specific legal case study, although it shares some characteristics with narrow case study research on a judicial opinion. It resembles a cognitive version of an exploratory case study, where a single concept (i.e., Burke’s pentagram) is assigned to the studied case, while taking into account a wide context and many dimensions.

(2) In the second model, a narrow case study going beyond judicial opinion , the research deals with judicial opinions but its aim is to find out something about wider phenomena. Without a doubt, judicial opinions contain valuable knowledge about the legal system because they are functionally linked to other elements of the process of applying law. They play an important role in the decision-making process, shaping social consciousness and court communication. Following on from this, it is easy to see how judicial opinions can act as a source of knowledge on wider aspects. However, while there are many ways to learn from judicial opinions, it would be very difficult to design a study that met the requirements of either intensive or interpretive case studies. Exploratory case studies in their technical version seem best to fit this model. H. T. Greely’s study ‘Quantitative Analysis of a Judicial Career: A Case Study of John John Minor Wisdom’ (1996) to some extent fits within the framework of this model. The analytical framework is a judicial career, so ideally we could reformulate the title to something like ‘Judge John Minor Wisdom: A Case Study of a Judicial Career’ in order to fit with our schema of case studies. With such a specific subject and analytical framework, this research would be very close to meeting the criteria of a case study research. The study was based on a statistical analysis of over 1,400 Wisdom’s opinions, looking at use of separate opinions, their length and the use of footnotes and citations to Judge Wisdom’s own opinions. Thus, it seems that we are dealing with a case study in which judicial opinions are the sole subject of research, but where the analytical framework extends beyond their content (it concerns a judge’s career). After reading the paper, it is obvious that the author had something more in his in mind. At the end of the text, Greely clearly indicates that his goal was to make ‘a preliminary assessment of the usefulness of these kinds of research techniques’ (1996: 101). Thus, a case study of all Judge Wisdom’s judicial opinions was designed to learn more about the research tool. It was thought as a test of usefulness of methodological tools. Viewed this way, Greely was very close to carrying out an exploratory case study in its technical version (where in situ and multifaceted analyses and taking into account the context are not strict requirements).

(3) Here the subject of a case study extends beyond judicial opinions, but the analytical framework applies only to them ( wide case studies on judicial opinions ). This model has most to offer in terms of conducting research aimed at increasing our understanding of the characteristics of judicial opinions. It has the potential to reveal new findings as it is best suited for pioneering research on judicial opinions. By extending the research subject, a more thorough understanding of judicial opinions may result. It is possible to use intensive case studies here, where the research question is wide. To some extent, interpretive case studies may be used, although there are significant difficulties in accessing sources other than judicial opinions. The use of new text analysis tools creates new possibilities, as do other research techniques like in-depth interviews, biographical studies, passive observation, case file analysis, press analysis and experimental research. For example, an extremely important and interesting topic in the study of judicial opinions is ghostwriting, or the contribution of clerks in creating judicial opinions. This phenomenon can be examined using quantitative techniques. In order to recognise this issue more accurately when using case studies, a given case has to be examined – it may be a specific opinion (Knowles 2009) or the opinions of a single judge (see Bodwin et al. 2013). However, using the wide model of case studies on judicial opinions enables the research to extend beyond the content of a given opinion(s). A great research tool in ghostwriting studies are interviews with the judges, clerks and other staff. Materials such as diaries, journals and letters may also be available in some instances, although they will generally be hard to access. To some extent, attempts at using the wide model of case studies on judicial opinions were made by K. Bodwin et al. (2013). The title of their paper suggests that it is ‘a case study of Judge Easterbrook’. However, the analytical framework of their work is the authorship of judicial opinions and the issue of using clerks to write them. The case examined comprises the opinions of U.S. federal court judge Frank Easterbrook, selected due to his reputation for writing most of his opinions by himself, with only limited participation by the clerks. Brown, Rosenthal and Yoon conducted quantitative research on a large sample of Judge Easterbrook’s opinions, alongside quasi-qualitative research, talking with the judge and his clerks. By going beyond the content of judicial opinions, the researchers were able to make new findings regarding the authorship of judicial opinions.

(4) In the last model, the subject of a case study goes beyond judicial opinions and the analytical framework does not apply directly to them ( wide case studies going beyond judicial opinions ). Here, judicial opinions are only an element relevant to the chosen case (which could be a court, a judge, a case or a legal culture). To better illustrate this, we could construct our research to try and answer any of the following questions. How does the court ensure legitimacy of its decisions? How does the court communicate with citizens? What kind of impact does public opinion have on the case? What is the role of clerks in the decision-making process? All of these issues probably require research on judicial opinions, but they also require studies of other objects. Judicial opinions have a great potential of being used within this model. The possibilities for carrying out this type of research are huge. Any of the aforementioned three types of case study research (inclusive, interpretative, exploratory) could be utilised within this model. Note that, because in this research configuration judicial opinions are not the only source of data, numerous research limitations related to the nature of judicial opinions are minimised. A vivid illustration of such a research strategy in the legal sciences is the work of S. N. Katz on ‘the best interests from the child doctrine’ (1966). Although the author does not explain how he understands the case study mentioned in the title, it is possible to find some elements of a case study approach here. The case of teenage Laura is widely discussed here, showing numerous problems related to the activities of the institution and the functioning of the child legal doctrine. This case was explicitly described as typical. The analysis is comprehensive – it concerns the activities of one of the care agencies, the impact of different state institutions and the first and second instance judicial processes. A large part of the reflections focuses on judicial opinions related to legal custody over Laura. In this study, the legal doctrine was shown in action . The case of Laura was an illustration of the problems and the starting point for a normative proposal regarding the application of this doctrine. In Katz’s studies, judicial opinions are an important part of reflection, but not the only one. It is not about generating knowledge about judicial opinions, but about emphasising the problems related to the application of the ‘doctrine of the best interest of the child’ in courts. In this way Katz’s analyses are a perfect example of wide case studies going beyond judicial opinions.

• 8. Conclusion

In the Introduction, we asked whether case study research can be fruitfully used to examine judicial opinions. The answer is undoubtedly positive, although with many serious and far-reaching reservations. Case studies can bring new, non-trivial threads to the research methodology on judicial opinions. But this does not mean that they are an obvious or default methodological choice. Nor does it mean that such research is easy to apply because every judicial opinion (or the case that it is a part of) immediately becomes the subject of a case study research in itself. A case study is often not an appropriate method to answer many research questions concerning judicial opinions. A researcher considering the use of a case study to examine judicial opinions must remember that there are three distinct types of case studies and there is no one solution to fit all cases. The specificity of judicial opinions also limits the use of case study research. Some general guidelines for choosing the adequate type of case study might be stressed. Intensive case studies can only be used in situations where they are a part of some wider research. It is, therefore, necessary to formulate a general research question to place judicial opinions within the context of functioning institutions. This is because of the inherent limitations of in-depth, comprehensive and based on a wide variety of sources analysis of judicial opinions (see Section 5). Next, as was mentioned, the hallmark of interpretive case studies is distrust towards the theory-driven, highly structuralized type of research. The ideal is to be free of any assumptions and conceptual schemata. There are some important limitations of studying judicial opinions in such a way. Thus, interpretive case studies offer limited possibilities and only make sense where research involves an area wider than just judicial opinions. Exploratory case studies correspond most closely to the specifics of judicial opinions and can be widely applied to their research. Such projects will be characterised by their narrow research area and very structured research. That approach seems to be more fruitful when applied to study judicial opinions mainly because of the low range of research techniques considered and clear boundaries of the research. In summation, judicial opinions can take different roles and occupy different places within a case study research. The four aforementioned models, based on the differences between the object and the analytical framework, allow the researcher to find the right place for them within their research perspective. Making this distinction allows the research to be better organised. A number of research examples presented within this article have some hallmarks of a case study research. In general, these authors did not articulate their methodological assumptions or justify the choice of a given case study type. Only certain aspects of case study research were explored, and only some ways to collect data were used. Despite those deficiencies, the research examples, to some extent, share the basic characteristics of case studies. Against this background, the development of legal case study research has been rather undisciplined and haphazard. Adopting the methodological rigour used in the social sciences seems to be the way to advance its use as a legal research tool. Authors who state that they are using a case study approach should adopt a set of established criteria for a case study research. So-called naive case studies, those that fail to meet the criteria, arise largely due to lack of methodological awareness, the intuitive nature of naive case studies (which makes it easy to define research as case study ) or the tradition shaped in the legal sciences. The legal examples quoted in this article are reverse cases, where research on judicial opinions was carried out without any reference to this approach (case studies de facto ), although many or all of the characteristics of professional case studies are present.

Argyrou, Aikaterini (2017) Making the Case for Case Studies in Empirical Legal Research. Utrecht Law Review 3: 95-113.

Bartlett, Lesley & Frances Vavrus (2017) Rethinking Case Study Research: A Comparative Approach . New York: Routledge.

Bench-Capon, Trevor & Henry Prakken (2010) A Case Study of Hypothetical and Value-based Reasoning in the US Supreme-Court Cases. In Governatori, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2009. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 11-20.

Beverland, Michael B. & Adam Lindgreen (2010) What Makes a Good Case Study? A Positivist Review of Qualitative Case Research Published in Industrial Marketing Management, 1971–2006. Industrial Marketing Management 39: 56-63.

Bodwin, Kelly, et al. (2013) A Statistical Approach to Judicial Authorship: A Case Study of Judge Easterbrook. Advances and Applications in Statistics 38: 123-148.

Cohen, Mathilde (2015) When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach. Washington and Lee Law Review 72: 483-571.

Creswell, John, W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.) . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Creswell, John W. (2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dhar, Upinder & Santosh Dhar (2018) The Case Method in Legal Education. Asian Journal of Legal Education 1: 76-87.

Epstein, Lee & Andrew D. Martin (2014) An Introduction to Empirical Legal Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fallon, Richard H. (2017) A Theory of Judicial Candor. Columbia Law Review 117: 2265-2318.

Flyvbjerg, Bent (2006) Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry 12: 219-245.

Frank, Jerome (1948) Say It With Music. Harvard Law Review 61: 921-957.

Gerring, John (2007) Case Study Research. Principles and Practices . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Greely, Henry T. (1996) Quantitative Analysis of a Judicial Career: A Case Study of Judge John Minor Wisdom. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 133-150.

Hall, Mark A. & Ronald F. Wright (2008) Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions. California Law Review 96: 63-122.

Kahn, Paul W. (2017) Making the Case: The Art of the Judicial Opinion . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Katz, Sanford N. (1966) Foster Parents Versus Agencies: A Case Study in the Judicial Application of ‘The Best Interests of the Child’ Doctrine. Michigan Law Review 65: 145-170.

Knowles, Helen J. (2009) Clerkish Control of Recent Supreme Court Opinions? A Case Study of Justice Kennedy’s Opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 10: 63-86.

Knowles, Helen J. (2012) Omak’s Minimum Pay Law Joan D’Arc: Telling the Local Story of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). Journal of Supreme Court History 37: 283-304.

Leeuw, Fras & Hans Schmeets (2016) Empirical Legal Research: A Guidance for Lawyers, Legislators and Regulators. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Lynd, Robert S. & Hellen M. Lynd (1929/1956) Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture . San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Miller, Lisa L. (2018) The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14: 381-396.

Mushkat, Roda (2017) On the Case Study Method in International Legal Research. Journal for Juridical Science 2: 143-182.

Nicholson, Marlene A. (2000) Mclibel: A Case Study in English Defamation Law. Wisconsin International Law Journal 18: 1-144.

Oldfather, Chad M. (2008) Writing, Cognition, and the Nature of the Judicial Function. Georgetown Law Journal 96: 1283-1317.

Posner, Richard A. (1995) Judges’ Writing Styles (And Do They Matter?). University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1421-1451.

Rountree, Clarke (2001) Instantiating “the law” and its Dissents in Korematsu v. United States: A Dramatistic Analysis of Judicial Discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech 87: 1-24.

Simons, Helen (2009) Case Study Research in Practice . London: Sage.

Stake, Robert E. (1994) Case Studies. In Denzin, N. K. & Yvonna S. Lincoln (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 236-247.

Stępień, Mateusz (2019) Say it with Images: Drawing on Jerome Frank’s Ideas on Judicial Decision Making. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 32(2): 321-334.

Threedy, Debora (2009) United States v. Hatahley: A Legal Archaeology Case Study in Law and Racial Conflict. American Indian Law Review 34: 1-75.

Thomas, Gary (2011) A Typology for the Case Study in Social Science Following a Review of Definition. Discourse and Structure. Qualitative Inquiry 17: 511-521.

Webley, Lisa (2016) Stumbling Blocks in Empirical Legal Research: Case Study Research. Law and Method 3: 1-21.

Wells, Michael (1994) French and American Judicial Opinions. Yale Journal of International Law 19: 81-133.

White, James B. (1995) What’s an Opinion For. University of Chicago Law Review 62: 1363-1369.

Wieviorka, Michel (1992) Case Studies: History or Sociology? In Ragin, Ch. C. & Howard S Becker (eds). What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159-172.

Verschuren, Piet (2003) Case Study as a Research Strategy: Some Ambiguities and Opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6: 121-139.

Yin, Robert K. (2014) Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Cases cited United Kingdom McDonald’s Corporation v. Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366

United States California v. Carney case, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)

United States v. Hatahley 351 U.S. 173 (1956)

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish , 300 U.S. 379 (1937)

  E-mailattendering

• ↑ Naar boven

Journal code: 23527927

Journal title: Law and Method

Journal id: 114364

Meld een fout Suggestie? Disclaimer © Boom juridisch

The Politics Shed- A Free Text Book for all students of Politics.

Judicial Review UK

& significant cases.

Until the 1970s the relationship between the UK judiciary and the UK government was very different from what it has become. The judiciary was seen as a largely conservative body whose members came from the same social and political background as members of successive Conservative governments. The judiciary usually showed support for the power of the state in relation to its citizens. Judges were not expected to challenge the authority of government in any significant way. They saw themselves as servants of the state rather than an equal partner. This relationship has changed considerably for a number of reasons:

● The growth of judicial review since the 1960s (see Ridge v Baldwin (1964 ) and M v Home Office (1993) which extended the principle of natural justice to tribunals

● The rise of liberal ideology in the UK from the 1960s onwards, including the growth of what is sometimes known as the ‘rights culture’

● The appointment of a series of liberal-minded senior judges since the 1990s

● The passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998, giving judges a codified statement of human rights which could be used to protect citizens against state power. Also the Freedom of Information Act.

● The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, which improved the independence of the judiciary in general

There are three main grounds for challenging a government decision by judicial review. In addition, the threat of judicial review can influence government action too.

1 Procedural unfairness: if the process by which a decision is made is considered to be improper. In July 2021 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agreed to change its ‘unfair, unlawful and discriminatory’ pressuring of benefits claimants to drop tribunals. The DWP frequently engaged in the practice of making last-minute higher benefit offers to claimants (though still lower than a legal entitlement). The department finally agreed to change its practices the day before a judicial review into its activity was due to commence.

2 Unreasonableness or irrationality: while it is rare for the courts to grant judicial review on this basis, in July 2021 the education secretary’s refusal to revoke an order imposed on a primary school to become an academy was declared ‘irrational’ by the High Court after the school’s governors brought a judicial review of the decision. After considering the ‘clear evidence from the school and the local authority of both continued efforts to improve and success in achieving those improvements’ the court quashed the academy order, refused an application from the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, for permission to appeal and ordered him to pay the school costs of £75,000.

3 Illegality: (Ultra Vires) such as if a decision contravenes existing law. In March 2021 The Guardian reported that ‘the government will be in clear breach of the law and exposed to a judicial review’ through the abandonment of its commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. In the aftermath of the cuts, several charities, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, notified the government of their intention to seek a judicial review after the Foreign Office told them it was terminating their project funding.

Judicial review  is an important way in which judges can check the powers of other public bodies. 

Case study Miller v Sec of State for Exiting the EU 2016  

Abu Qatada case BBC News  

Can asylum seekers be sent to Rwanda 2023

Some Significant Cases (link)

 Case Study:  Ultra vires and the ECHR

R. (Reilly) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016)

Reilly argued that, in requiring her to work for a private company in order to receive her benefit payments, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) had infringed the protection against slavery provided in Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On appeal in 2013, the Supreme Court concluded that while the DWP had not infringed the ECHR in introducing ‘welfare to work’, the scheme was unlawful because the department had operated ultra vires, i.e. beyond the authority given to it by parliament. By then the government had already passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act, which changed  the law retrospectively so that no offence had been committed. In 2016, the Court of Appeal eventually ruled that changing the law retrospectively in this way was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR (which guarantees the right to a fair trial) but confirmed that it was up to the government and parliament to decide how to proceed in light of that declaration of incompatibility.

In this case the Court of Appeal ruled that the government department in question (the DWP) had not established slavery, which is prohibited under the ECHR, but had acted beyond the authority given to it by parliament under statute law.

Case Study:The Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act

R. (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (2015)

Beaurish Tigere, who had arrived in the UK from Zambia aged 6 and subsequently completed her A-levels, was not eligible for a student loan for her undergraduate degree because she did not have indefinite leave to remain in the UK and would not be able to apply to the UK Border Agency for this until 2018. In 2015, the UK Supreme Court accepted her appeal on the grounds that the negative impact on the appellant’s rights under Article 2 of the ECHR (the right to education) and also Article 14 (prohibiting discrimination) could not be justified.

 Case study: Common Law

The Al Rawi case and secret hearings, 13 July 2011

The case was brought by former inmates of the US prison at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba, who claimed that the UK security services had contributed to their detention and mistreatment. The security chiefs, supported by the government, argued that in the interests of national security, they must be allowed to give evidence in secret. The Supreme Court rejected this argument on the grounds that it breached one of the principles of a fair trial. Each side must be able to see the evidence put before the judge.

 Case Study: The Limits of the Human Rights Act 

The case of Private Jason Smith, 30 June 2010

Private Smith was a UK serviceman who died of heatstroke on campaign in Iraq in 2003. His family brought a case against the Ministry of Defence arguing that the authorities should have safeguarded him. The High Court ruled in their favour but when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, this judgment was overruled by a majority of six to three.

The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act did not extend to troops in combat situations.

Case study EU Law

The HS2 rail link, 22 January 2014

Campaigners against the government’s planned London to BIrmingham high speed rail link requested a judicial review to investigate whether the project complied with EU environmental directives. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal on the grounds that parliament had not yet reached a final decision on the scheme and so its merits remained open to debate.

The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022

Case studies

Karim ezzat – district judge (magistrates’ courts) & recorder.

“For some time before I applied to be a Deputy District Judge (MC), I had thought that it would be a job that I’d both enjoy and be good at.

In 2011 I applied to shadow a District Judge (MC) for three days so I could get a greater insight into the role and speak with judges as to their experience sitting. I shadowed at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court. I was initially allocated to District Judge Williams though I also spent a day shadowing District Judge Jeremy Coleman.

I was an experienced advocate and was a little sceptical as to whether shadowing a District Judge in court would give me a greater insight into the job. I was wrong.

Shadowing Judge Williams and Judge Coleman gave me an entirely different perspective as to what takes place in court. Not just the change in vantage point but the juggling of different needs, from the defendants, the complainants, the lawyers, probation, mental health services as well as police officers turning up in the middle of a list applying for search warrants.

I also got an appreciation of the work done by the judges outside of court.

The whole experience reaffirmed my interest in applying. The shadowing gave me confidence in my decision to pursue a judicial career.

In 2011 I applied to become a Deputy District Judge and was subsequently appointed. I knew from my first day sitting that I wanted to continue on to a full-time post.

In 2016 I was appointed as a District Judge (MC). I was posted to Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court and was fortunate enough to share an office with Judge Coleman five years after first shadowing him.

I would urge anyone interested in pursuing a career in the judiciary to make use of the shadowing scheme, even if you have considerable experience in the area of law that you are hoping to sit.”

Geraldine Clark – Recorder, South East Circuit

“In September 2005 I had the pleasure of spending three days work shadowing HHJ Machin at Lincoln Crown Court. As a barrister with a commercial practice and no experience in crime, the experience was a revelation.

I sat beside Judge Machin as he presided over the trial of a defendant accused of possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply. What a view of the court! How much I could hear! What a contrast in styles between counsel! After half a day, the trial was abandoned because a police witness gave an answer suggesting that the defendant was well known to him. So it was “ground hog day” the next day when the trial began again.

The whole trial was full of human interest and a complete contrast to my day job as a commercial barrister. I was struck by how little reading needed to be done and the friendliness of the court staff. I knew straight away that I would enjoy sitting in crime.

Judge Machin and the Recorder of Lincoln – whom I watched passing some sentences – were extremely kind to me and answered all my questions. They told me how and why they had become judges and the good and the less-good aspects of the job.

I was particularly grateful to Judge Machin for showing me the excellent handbooks judges use, such as the Crown Court Index, Thomas’s Sentencing Referencer and, of course, the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) Bench Book. It gave me confidence to know that some aspects of criminal judge-craft are written down and so accessible to civil practitioners.

The experience of work shadowing was invaluable to me when I applied to become a Recorder, especially when it came to the role play. I recommend it to anyone thinking of applying. To get the most benefit, apply for work shadowing well before you may be applying to be a Recorder. Good luck!

David Binns – Parking Adjudicator

“I spent three days work shadowing a circuit judge, observing the proceedings from the judge’s perspective and discussing the case with him and his fellow judges.

The scheme provides a welcome opportunity for existing members of the judiciary to discuss their own experiences of the appointments process, to dispel misunderstandings and promote a culture of openness.

I was able to hear all the evidence in a complex case involving three expert witnesses. It was very interesting to observe the court proceedings from the judge’s perspective rather than as an advocate and to discuss the case with him. I was well looked after each day by the very helpful court staff. Although his judgement was delivered after my sitting finished, Judge Appleby sent me a copy by email. He was always friendly and chatty despite his heavy workload. At lunchtime we joined the other judges sitting that day to eat our lunch. They all made me feel very welcome and I found the atmosphere to be unstuffy and collegiate. I listened attentively but was also encouraged to participate in the lively exchanges of views and experiences. I thoroughly enjoyed my three days work shadowing and I would recommend the scheme to anyone who is interested in observing and gaining a better understanding of the life of a circuit, district or tribunal judge.”

Robert Lazarus – Recorder, North West

“I never imagined that someone from my background would ever have the opportunity to take up a formal judicial role. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that I had been attending court in one capacity or another for over two decades, I still perceived the judiciary as existing in some rarefied environment, detached from the real world.

My time spent shadowing HHJ Critchlow in the Crown Court at Guildford greatly changed that perspective. I was immediately struck by the collegiate atmosphere amongst the judges. Much like in Chambers, they regularly discussed cases and sought advice from one another.

As I did not practice in crime, I had little experience of work in the Crown Court. Judge Critchlow took time to explain to me what kind of work I would (and would not) be doing as a Recorder. Throughout the week, I was given plenty of advice and positive encouragement regarding my application. If I had any uncertainty about whether a judicial role was something that I could and should pursue, I was left in no doubt by the time the week was over.

I had some awareness of the difficulties being experienced by the criminal bar and, and, as well as speaking about this with the local judges, I spent some time talking to members of the bar at court about the problem as they perceived them. Following this, I decided to join the Criminal Bar Association so that I could ensure that I was firmly in touch with developments at the criminal bar (as well as enjoying the excellent CPD opportunities membership afforded). This membership is something that I have kept up following my appointment.

I was appointed as Recorder sitting in Crime in 2018 and obtained authorisation to sit in Civil in 2019. It is exceptionally rewarding opportunity and I am now considering my next judicial application. I still look back at my time in Guildford with exceptional gratitude for the opportunities it afforded me.”

Diversity in the judiciary isn't just about representation. It impacts how cases are decided.

• Researchers who study courts have found judges' gender and racial identity impacts how cases are decided.
• In sex discrimination cases, women are 15% more likely to rule in favor of the claimant than men.
• 74% of active federal judges are white and 67% of active federal judges are men.
• This article is part of a series called " The Cost of Inequity ," examining the hurdles that marginalized and disenfranchised groups face across a range of sectors.

In the spring of 2009, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether officials at an Arizona school violated the Constitution when they put a 13-year-old girl through a strip search in the nurse's office. The school officials believed that the girl was hiding ibuprofen in her underwear.

During oral arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer wondered if it might have been reasonable for officials to think pills were in her underwear. 

"In my experience, when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear," he said, prompting laughter in the courtroom.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not laughing. At the time of the hearing, she was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. "They have never been a 13-year-old girl," Ginsburg told a reporter at USA Today about her colleagues a couple of weeks later. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."

That summer the court sided with the girl.

It's impossible to know what went on behind the scenes and whether the late Justice Ginsburg swayed her colleagues. But it's incredibly likely that her presence, especially when she was the only woman on the court, influenced the outcome of this case and others.

Advocates for gender parity and racial diversity in federal courts often emphasize the importance of representation: Ginsburg was considered by many to be a role model for young girls aspiring to a legal career. But researchers who study the makeup of the courts have found judges' gender and racial identity affect how cases are decided.

"When you care about who is crafting the law, who the judges are really matters," Christina Boyd, a University of Georgia political-science professor, said. "Why do we keep talking about representation and numbers? It matters because people want to look at the courts and see themselves. But it also has substantive effects."

In most issue areas, there's really no observable difference in how female and male judges behave, Boyd said. But she has found that a trial judge's gender and race have "very large effects" on their decision-making when the cases before them implicate sex, gender, or race. 

These findings matter today because the US federal judiciary is still predominantly white and 

Related stories

male. About 74% of federal judges are white and 67% of federal judges are men, according to an Insider analysis of Federal Judicial Center data.

In sex-discrimination cases, women are about 15% as likely to rule in favor of the claimant as men. This was true even when accounting for age and political ideology, Boyd said.

Ginsburg addressed this in her 2009 interview with USA Today, speaking of her former colleague Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court. "As often as Justice O'Connor and I have disagreed, because she is truly a Republican from Arizona, we were together in all the gender discrimination cases," Ginsburg said.

"It's not just that female judges behave differently, but that they actually affect male judges' behavior," Boyd added. In her research on federal appeals courts, just one level below the Supreme Court, Boyd found that the presence of just one woman on a panel of three judges influences the court's decision. "You add that female judge to the panel, to the deliberations, it causes the male judges to rule differently," she said.

"In the law, there's this 'reasonable person' standard, and for decades the reasonable person was a white male cis perspective," said Theresa Lau, senior counsel on judges and courts at the National Women's Law Center. "If somebody is a woman or person of color they'll have a different outlook on life."

When it comes to gender, a judge's identity might have a significant effect in a case about pregnancy discrimination or abortion access. "Let's say you're deciding whether a law unfairly restricts the right to abortion," Lau said. "I guarantee you women will have a different perspective on what is an undue burden, especially if they come from a community that has historically faced restrictions to access to care."

"There are differences in the way judges of different backgrounds judge cases, but it really matters mostly when the identity or the difference speaks to something about the case," said  Maya Sen, a professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Sen, who also studies the effects of diversity on judicial decisions, said it has been hard to study this topic in part because diversity on the bench is such a new phenomenon. 

Researchers couldn't even begin to study it in earnest until after the 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter made judicial diversity a priority, according to Sen. Before that, federal judges were nearly all white and male.

Since then Boyd has found that racial identity affects how judges rule when race is at the heart of a case. Black judges are about 39% more likely to decide in favor of the race discrimination plaintiff than white judges. Another study found that African American judges were more than twice as likely to rule in favor of Voting Rights Act plaintiffs as white judges, and that the presence of just one nonwhite judge on a panel of judges was enough to influence its ruling.

Researchers have had a hard time studying the rulings of Latino, Asian American, Native American, and LGBTQ judges because there are so few of them, Sen said. "The numbers are so small that it's really impossible to firmly try to put a narrative on it," she said.

That hasn't stopped some judges from speculating how cases might have been decided differently in the past.

In March, US District Judge Edward M. Chen testified before a House committee on diversity in the judiciary. He brought the landmark case United States v. Korematsu, which upheld the government's internment of Japanese Americans.

"In justifying why Japanese Americans could be singled out for mass treatment, whereas Americans of German and Italian descent were not, the court opined that Japanese Americans were more prone to be disloyal and presented a military risk," Chen testified. "I ask the question: What if there had been a Japanese American Justice on the court?"

• Main content

• Become a judge
• Support to become a judge

Case studies

• Pre-Application Judicial Education Programme
• Career advice

Case studies of all levels of the judiciary are available on the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) website . 

Case studies: judges in courts

The following case studies are from a series of interviews by the Law Society Gazette challenging some of the myths surrounding judicial appointment.

• Her Honour Judge Frances Kirkham
• District judge Michael Walker CBE  
• District judge (magistrates' court) Tan Ikram
• Lord Justice of Appeal Gary Hickinbottom
• Deputy High Court judge Alexandra Marks

Deputy district judge Aneeta Borwick  talks to the JAC about how working experience in magistrates' courts was useful experience, and training to become a judge while pregnant.

Case studies: tribunals – judges and fee-paid members

Pieter de Waal , general counsel at the Law Society and a fee-paid tribunal member at the Information Tribunal, describes his current position, career highlights and tribunal role.

Thaira Bibi , a salaried immigration judge and a nominated diversity and community relations judge, describes her career, the skills she brought to the bench as a solicitor, and her tips for solicitors thinking about becoming a judge.

George Lubega talks about his role as an independent adjudicator for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in England and Wales.

Samina Majid , fee-paid judge of the First-tier Tribunal, tells us about her current judicial role and her experience as a magistrate.

Nicola Chandler , disability qualified tribunal member of the Social Entitlement Chamber, explains what she learned from Pre-application Judicial Education (PAJE) programme. 

Case studies: becoming a High Court judge or deputy High Court judge

Mr Justice Murray offers his valuable advice and experience to solicitors who are applying for appointment to the Bench in our podcast and in a JAC case study .

Tim Smith , BCLP partner and deputy High Court judge, talks to Yael Levy Ariel about his judicial career, shares advice to aspiring solicitor judges and explains why he thinks appointing more solicitors to the bench is important in our podcast.

David Stone was appointed as a deputy High Court judge in 2017. He's also an intellectual property solicitor and partner at Allen & Overy. He talks about:

• what it’s like to be a solicitor working as a deputy High Court judge  (17 minutes)
• the telephone assessment part of the application (4 minutes)

Case studies: recorders

In the following case studies, solicitors write about their experience of becoming a judicial recorder:

• judicial recorder Heather Baucher  
• judicial recorder Peggy Ray  

Comments from judges

The following comments describe two solicitors' experience of becoming a judge:

"I think solicitors have become more specialist and that narrows your field of work and then when you start to sit as a judge you have got to be available to do a much wider range than your practice. You are learning all the time as you face new situations. And you have to use your knowledge and intellectual ability and your knowledge keeps growing."

"I knew nothing about immigration when I applied for it, because you can pick it up. I knew nothing about financial regulation when I started off, but actually what they're looking for is a generalist, somebody who knows about evidence and procedure on the basis that if you've been doing it for seven years in whatever field. You're probably intelligent enough to pick up the actual law, as long as you've got the procedure and the evidence under your belt, which you should do after seven years."

Maximise your Law Society membership with My LS

Have you found this page helpful?

• Book Solutions
• State Boards

Case Study Questions Class 8 Civics Judiciary

Case study questions class 8 civics chapter 3 judiciary.

CBSE Class 8 Case Study Questions Civics Judiciary. Important Case Study Questions for Class 8 Board Exam Students. Here we have arranged some Important Case Base Questions for students who are searching for Paragraph Based Questions Judiciary.

At Case Study Questions there will given a Paragraph. In where some Important Questions will made on that respective Case Based Study. There will various types of marks will given 1 marks, 2 marks, 3 marks, 4 marks.

CBSE Case Study Questions Class 8 Civics Judiciary

Case Study 1

Courts take decisions on a very large number of issues. They can decide that no teacher can beat a student, or about the sharing of river waters between states, or they can punish people for particular crimes. Broadly speaking, the work that the judiciary does can be divided into the following: Dispute Resolution: The judicial system provides a mechanism for resolving disputes between citizens, between citizens and the government, between two state governments and between the centre and state governments. Judicial Review: As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary also has the power to strike down particular laws passed by the Parliament if it believes that these are a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is called judicial review. Upholding the Law and Enforcing Fundamental Rights: Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court if they believe that their Fundamental Rights have been violated.

1.) Mention below the primary functions of the judiciary in India.

Answer: In India, the judiciary performs three crucial functions:

a) Resolution of Conflicts: This procedure resolves conflicts involving individuals, groups of individuals, and the government. The Judiciary also resolves conflicts between different states.

b.)  Judicial Scrutiny: As the final interpreter of the Constitution, the judiciary also has the power to strike down particular laws passed by the Parliament if it believes that these are a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is called judicial review

c) To protect basic freedoms: Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court if they believe that their Fundamental Rights have been violated.

2.) Explain why judicial review is an integral part of the Indian constitution.

Answer: The Judiciary possesses the authority to conduct Judicial review, a process of significant importance. Judicial review empowers the Judiciary to evaluate whether laws created by the legislative body align with the basic principles given within the Constitution. Furthermore, the Judiciary is vested with the power to declare any law  as unconstitutional, thus assuming the crucial role of the ultimate guardian of the Constitution’s integrity..

3.) How does the judiciary safeguard citizens’ Fundamental Rights?

Answer: The respected judiciary of the country highly values the importance of citizens’ Fundamental Rights. It provides them with a way to seek solutions either through the revered Supreme Court or the esteemed High Court. This smart mechanism makes sure that every citizen can easily get justice and that their basic rights are carefully protected within our well-regarded legal system.

Case Study 2

Imagine a situation in which a powerful politician has encroached on land belonging to your family. Within this judicial system, the politician has the power to appoint and dismiss a judge from his office. When you take this case to court, the judge is clearly partial to the politician. The control that the politician holds over the judge does not allow for the judge to take an independent decision. This lack of independence would force the judge to make all judgments in favour of the politician. Although we often hear of rich and powerful people in India trying to influence the judicial process, the Indian Constitution protects against this kind of situation by providing for the independence of the judiciary. One aspect of this independence is the ‘separation of powers’. This is a key feature of the Constitution. What this means here is that other branches of government – the legislature and the executive – cannot interfere in the work of the judiciary. The courts are not under the government and do not act on their behalf. For the above separation to work well, it is also crucial that all judges in the High Court as well as the Supreme Court are appointed with very little interference from these other branches of government. Once appointed to this office, it is also very difficult to remove a judge It is the independence of the judiciary that allows the courts to play a central role in ensuring that there is no misuse of power by the legislature and the executive. It also plays a crucial role in protecting the Fundamental Rights of citizens because anyone can approach the courts if they believe that their rights have been violated.

1.) Why is the ‘separation of powers’ principle crucial to preserving the judiciary’s independence?

Answer: In India, the idea of ‘separation of powers’ is important. It means that the judiciary has its own independence. This is to make sure that other parts of the government, like the lawmakers and executives, can’t control it. This helps judges give fair judgments without any political pressure. This principle keeps the judiciary honest and promotes a system where legal processes are fair and without bias. It protects people’s rights and makes sure the law is followed properly.

2.) The appointment process of judges contribute to maintaining the independence of the judiciary. Reflect.

Answer: The appointment of judges is done in a way that limits involvement from other government branches, especially in the High Court and Supreme Court. To prevent judges from being influenced by political agendas or influential people, appointments are made with little intervention. This procedure strengthens the judiciary’s independence and enables judges to uphold the law without worrying about favouritism or retaliation.

3.) What is the contribution of an independent Judiciary in protecting the Fundamental Rights of citizens?

Answer: Keeping the judiciary independent is really important to protect people’s rights. If someone thinks their rights are not being respected, they can ask the courts for help. The courts being fair gives regular people the power to seek fairness and make sure the government is doing things right. This way, their rights are safe within the laws.

4.) How does the judiciary prevent misuse of power and strengthen India’s democracy??

Answer: The main job of the judiciary is to protect its own independence and fairness. This is really important because it stops the government’s other parts, like the lawmakers and executives, from misusing their power. The judiciary watches over what the government does and makes sure it follows the rules. This system strengthens the foundation of democracy and keeps the rule of law going.

Case Study 3

There are three different levels of courts in our country. There are several courts at the lower level while there is only one at the apex level. The courts that most people interact with are what are called subordinate or district courts. These are usually at the district or Tehsil level or in towns and they hear many kinds of cases. Each state is divided into districts that are presided over by a District Judge. Each state has a High Court which is the highest court of that state. At the top is the Supreme Court that is located in New Delhi and is presided over by the Chief Justice of India. The decisions made by the Supreme Court are binding on all other courts in India. Are these different levels of courts connected to each other? Yes, they are. In India, we have an integrated judicial system, meaning that the decisions made by higher courts are binding on the lower courts. Another way to understand this integration is through the appellate system that exists in India. This means that a person can appeal to a higher court if they believe that the judgment passed by the lower court is not just.

1.)  How are courts in India connected to each other? what does the integrated judicial system imply?

Answer: India, the courts operate as a unified judicial system, where rulings from higher courts hold authority over the lower courts. This implies that judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court are applicable across all courts in the country. The integrated system ensures consistency in the implementation of laws and legal principles nationwide. It fosters a sense of uniformity, upholding the integrity and efficacy of the judicial process throughout India.

2.) Explain the structure of the judiciary in India ? how does the appellate system work?

Answer: The district courts, state-level High Courts, and supreme court, the Supreme Court, make up India’s three levels of courts. People who are unhappy with a lower court’s decision can seek justice by appealing to a higher court through the appellate procedure. This strategy guarantees a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the matter and provides opportunities for remedy if one believes the lower court’s judgement was unfair or incorrect.

3.)  How does the Supreme Court enhance the fairness and efficacy of the judicial process in India?

Answer: The appellate system in India ensures fairness and efficacy by offering a mechanism for reviewing lower court judgments. It allows individuals to seek justice and rectification if they feel aggrieved by a decision. This system fosters confidence in the legal system, as it provides a safeguard against potential errors or biases in lower court rulings.

4.) What is the hierarchy of courts in India? How does the Supreme Court’s authority impact lower courts?

Answer: The hierarchy of courts in India starts with the district or subordinate courts, followed by the High Courts at the state level. The apex level is the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Supreme Court hold supremacy and are binding on all other courts in India. This ensures consistency and adherence to legal principles across the judicial system, with lower courts being guided by the judgments of higher courts.

Case Study 4

In principle, all citizens of India can access the courts in this country. This implies that every citizen has a right to justice through the courts. As you read earlier, the courts play a very significant role in protecting our Fundamental Rights. If any citizen believes that their rights are being violated, then they can approach the court for justice to be done. While the courts are available for all, in reality access to courts has always been difficult for a vast majority of the poor in India. Legal procedures involve a lot of money and paperwork as well as take up a lot of time. For a poor person who cannot read and whose family depends on a daily wage, the idea of going to court to get justice often seems remote. In response to this, the Supreme Court in the early 1980s devised a mechanism of Public Interest Litigation or PIL to increase access to justice. It allowed any individual or organisation to file a PIL in the High Court or the Supreme Court on behalf of those whose rights were being violated. The legal process was greatly simplified and even a letter or telegram addressed to the Supreme Court or the High Court could be treated as a PIL. In the early years, PIL was used to secure justice on a large number of issues such as rescuing bonded labourers from inhuman work conditions; and securing the release of prisoners in Bihar who had been kept in jail even after their punishment term was complete.

1.) What does the term “public interest litigation” (PIL) mean?

Answer: In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court devised Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to broaden justice access. PIL enabled anyone to file in courts on behalf of victims whose rights are violated. The process got simplified and now even a letter sufficed to file a PIL. This reform connected citizens and justice effectively.

2.) Differentiate between PIL and traditional litigation.

Answer: Differing from regular litigation, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) stands distinct. It provides a path where any concerned person or group can initiate legal actions for others whose rights were violated. Unlike the usual setup where only the aggrieved parties can file, PIL’s reach is broader. It encompasses a wider legal intervention, addressing matters of public concern. It also ensures equal justice access, especially for marginalized groups.

3.) What notable accomplishments did Public Interest Litigation (PIL) make in its early years?

Answer: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) made major steps towards securing justice on different social issues in its early years. It played a crucial role in rescuing bonded laborers from inhuman working conditions, securing the release of prisoners in Bihar who had served their punishment terms but were still imprisoned, and addressing other pressing societal problems.

4.) What role does Public Interest Litigation (PIL) play in safeguarding India’s Fundamental Rights and advancing justice??

Answer: Public interest litigation (PIL) is a valuable strategy that enhances justice accessibility, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalized communities. It empowers concerned individuals and groups to stand for those whose rights are being violated. What sets PIL apart is its simplified legal process, allowing complaints to be lodged through various means such as letters or telegrams. This inclusivity ensures even individuals with limited resources can seek rightful justice. PILs have played a crucial role in addressing systemic issues and safeguarding Fundamental Right.

Case Study 5

For the common person, access to courts is access to justice. The courts exercise a crucial role in interpreting the Fundamental Rights of citizens. The courts interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution on the Right to Life to include the Right to Food. They, therefore, ordered the State to take certain steps to provide food for all including the mid-day meal scheme. However, there are also court judgments that people believe work against the best interests of the common person. For example, activists who work on issues concerning the right to shelter and housing for the poor believe that the recent judgments on evictions are a far cry from earlier judgments. While recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city, earlier judgments (like the 1985 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation) had tried to protect the livelihoods of slum dwellers. Another issue that affects the common person’s access to justice is the inordinately long number of years that courts take to hear a case. The phrase ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is often used to characterise this extended time period that courts take. However, inspite of this there is no denying that the judiciary has played a crucial role in democratic India, serving as a check on the powers of the executive and the legislature as well as in protecting the Fundamental Rights of citizens. The members of the Constituent Assembly had quite correctly envisioned a system of courts with an independent judiciary as a key feature of our democracy.

1.) How do courts exercise their role in interpreting Fundamental Rights, as exemplified in the case of the Right to Food?

Answer: Courts play a critical role in interpreting Fundamental Rights, as demonstrated in the case of the Right to Food. By interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life), they ruled that the Right to Food is inherently covered within the Right to Life. Consequently, they directed the State to implement measures such as the mid-day meal scheme to ensure the provision of food for all citizens, thereby upholding and protecting their Fundamental Rights.

2.) What is the perspective of activists on recent court judgments concerning the right to shelter for the poor?

Answer: Activists, advocating for the right to shelter for the poor, express concern over recent court judgments on evictions that seem to view slum dwellers as encroachers in the city. In contrast, they cite earlier judgments like Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation in 1985, which displayed a more protective approach towards the livelihoods of slum dwellers, ensuring their rights and well-being were considered.

3.) How does the prolonged duration of court cases affect access to justice for the common person?

Answer: Long court cases really affect how easily regular people can get justice. The saying ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ fits this well. It means if getting justice takes too long, it’s like not getting justice at all. Legal processes that take a long time can make it hard to get the right solution for problems. This waiting can make people frustrated and lose trust in the legal system. It can also slow down fixing issues that matter a lot to people’s lives.

4.) Write below the key roles that the judiciary plays in India’s democratic system?

Answer: In our democratic system, the Indian judiciary has important roles. It’s like a strong base of democracy, making sure the people in charge (executive and legislative) follow the rules and are responsible. It also acts as a shield, protecting our basic rights as citizens. The judiciary explains the Constitution, solves arguments, and gives a fair place to resolve legal fights. This all makes sure our democracy works well and stays strong.

5.) How did the Constituent Assembly’s members perceive the judiciary’s function in India?

Answer: When the members of the Constituent Assembly were working on India’s democracy, they saw the judiciary as a key part. They all agreed on making a court that’s fair and separate from other powers. They thought that no one should misuse their power. Their main goal was to keep democracy strong and make sure everyone gets treated fairly. They wanted to set up a court that’s not controlled by others, so people would trust it more.

Read: Next Chapter Case Study Question Answer Solution

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

We have a strong team of experienced Teachers who are here to solve all your exam preparation doubts

Sikkim scert class 4 evs chapter 6 eating together solution, assertion and reason questions class 7 maths chapter 2 fractions and decimals, assam scert class 8 geography and economics chapter 5 solutions, west bengal class 11 bengali semester 1 and semester 2 syllabus.

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Gurukul of Excellence

Classes for Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics by IITians

Join our Telegram Channel for Free PDF Download

Case Study Questions for Class 8 Social Science Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary

• Last modified on: 3 months ago
• Reading Time: 13 Minutes

Table of Contents

Here we are providing case study questions for class 8 social science Civics Chapter 5 Judiciary.

Case Study Question 1:

Read the following passage and answer the questions:

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority of India and is the highest court of the Republic of India under the Constitution. Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or High Court if he believes that his Fundamentals Rights like right to life and right to health are violated. But this cannot be possible if the judiciary is not independent. It means that the judges should not be controlled by the politicians or rich people. So, the power is separated in the Constitution. Because of the separation of power, the legislature and the executive cannot interfere in the work of the judiciary.

Q. 1. Which is the highest constitutional body of India? (a) High Court (b) Supreme Court (c) District Court (d) None of these

Ans. Option (b) is correct. Explanation: Supreme Court is the highest court in India and has ultimate judicial authority to interpret the Constitution and decide questions of national law.

Q.2. Do you think the judiciary is independent in India? (a) Yes (b) Partly (c) No (d) Cannot be predicted

Ans. Option (a) is correct.

Explanation: Yes, Judicial system is independent in India. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country.

Q. 3. What should a citizen do if he feels that his rights are being violated? (a) Should take citizenship of another country (b) Should take help of judiciary (c) Constitutional amendment should be demanded (d) Should start a non-cooperation movement

Ans. Option (b) is correct. Explanation: When any of our rights is violated, we can seek remedy through courts. If it is a Fundamental Right, we can directly approach the Supreme Court or the High Court of a state.

Q. 4. The Supreme Court of India is trusted by all the citizens of the country because: (a) It is independent (b) No political party or individual can pressurise the court (c) Any citizen of the country can file his case in the Supreme Court (d) All of the above

Ans. Option (d) is correct. Explanation: Supreme Court has a power of judicial review and it is independent. It plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognises the limits of its own power. Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court easily.

Q. 5. “The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in our country.” Above statement is true or false? (a) True (b) false (c) Partly true (d) Cannot be predicted

Ans. Option (a) is correct. Explanation: The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal under the Constitution of India. It is the highest constitutional court with the power of constitutional review. It consists of the Chief Justice of India and 33 sanctioned other judges.

Learning Outcomes

• Understand the main elements of the Indian Judicial System by learning the structure and process followed by the judiciary: Trace a case from lower to higher courts.
• Learn about the differences between civil and criminal cases.
• Understand that the judicial system provides the mechanism for resolving disputes between citizens.

Important Keywords

• Violation: This refers to breaking a law or encroachment of an individual’s Fundamental Rights.
• Acquit: This refers to the court declaring that an individual is not guilty for the crime which he was tried for by the court.
• Judicial system: This is the mechanism of courts which a citizen may approach when a law is violated.
• Judicial review: The judiciary has the power to modify or cancel such laws passed by the Parliament which do not adhere to the Constitution. This is called Judicial Review.
• To appeal: In context of this chapter, it refers to a petition filed before a higher court to hear a case which has already been decided by a lower court.
• Eviction: In context of this chapter, it refers to the removal of individuals from homes/land which they are currently living in.
• Separation of power: It refers to division of powers between the central and state governments.

Related Posts

Social science class 8 chapter list, old chapter list.

Class 8 Social Science History: Our Pasts – III

Chapter 1 How, When and Where Chapter 2 From Trade to Territory Chapter 3 Ruling the Countryside Chapter 4 Tribals, Dikus and the Vision of a Golden Age Chapter 5 When People Rebel Chapter 6 Colonialism and the City Chapter 7 Weavers, Iron Smelters and Factory Owners Chapter 8 Civilising the “Native”, Educating the Nation Chapter 9 Women, Caste, and Reform Chapter 10 The Changing World of Visual Arts Chapter 11 The Making of the National Movement Chapter 12 India After Independence

Class 8 Social Science Geography

Class 8 Social Science Geography: Resources and Development

Chapter 1 Resources Chapter 2 Land, Soil, Water, Natural Vegetation and Wildlife Resources Chapter 3 Mineral and Power Resources Chapter 4 Agriculture Chapter 5 Industries Chapter 6 Human Resource

Class 8 Social Science Civics NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Social Science Civics: Social and Political Life – II

Chapter 1 The Indian Constitution Chapter 2 Understanding Secularism Chapter 3 Why Do We Need a Parliament? Chapter 4 Understanding Laws Chapter 5 Judiciary Chapter 6 Understanding Our Criminal Justice System Chapter 7 Understanding Marginalisation Chapter 8 Confronting Marginalisation Chapter 9 Public Facilities Chapter 10 Law and Social Justice

What is Case Study Question in Class 8 Social Science?

Case study questions typically present a specific scenario or case related to a historical event, geographical issue, or social problem. Students are expected to read and understand the details of the case and then answer a set of questions based on their understanding and knowledge of the subject matter.

Case study questions can be an effective way to assess students’ understanding and ability to apply social science concepts to practical situations. They also encourage students to think critically, analyze information, and draw informed conclusions – skills that are valuable both inside and outside the classroom.

Download CBSE Books

Exam Special Series:

• Sample Question Paper for CBSE Class 10 Science (for 2024)
• Sample Question Paper for CBSE Class 10 Maths (for 2024)
• CBSE Most Repeated Questions for Class 10 Science Board Exams
• CBSE Important Diagram Based Questions Class 10 Physics Board Exams
• CBSE Important Numericals Class 10 Physics Board Exams
• CBSE Practical Based Questions for Class 10 Science Board Exams
• CBSE Important “Differentiate Between” Based Questions Class 10 Social Science
• Sample Question Papers for CBSE Class 12 Physics (for 2024)
• Sample Question Papers for CBSE Class 12 Chemistry (for 2024)
• Sample Question Papers for CBSE Class 12 Maths (for 2024)
• Sample Question Papers for CBSE Class 12 Biology (for 2024)
• CBSE Important Diagrams & Graphs Asked in Board Exams Class 12 Physics
• Master Organic Conversions CBSE Class 12 Chemistry Board Exams
• CBSE Important Numericals Class 12 Physics Board Exams
• CBSE Important Definitions Class 12 Physics Board Exams
• CBSE Important Laws & Principles Class 12 Physics Board Exams
• 10 Years CBSE Class 12 Chemistry Previous Year-Wise Solved Papers (2023-2024)
• 10 Years CBSE Class 12 Physics Previous Year-Wise Solved Papers (2023-2024)
• 10 Years CBSE Class 12 Maths Previous Year-Wise Solved Papers (2023-2024)
• 10 Years CBSE Class 12 Biology Previous Year-Wise Solved Papers (2023-2024)
• ICSE Important Numericals Class 10 Physics BOARD Exams (215 Numericals)
• ICSE Important Figure Based Questions Class 10 Physics BOARD Exams (230 Questions)
• ICSE Mole Concept and Stoichiometry Numericals Class 10 Chemistry (65 Numericals)
• ICSE Reasoning Based Questions Class 10 Chemistry BOARD Exams (150 Qs)
• ICSE Important Functions and Locations Based Questions Class 10 Biology
• ICSE Reasoning Based Questions Class 10 Biology BOARD Exams (100 Qs)

✨ Join our Online JEE Test Series for 499/- Only (Web + App) for 1 Year

✨ Join our Online NEET Test Series for 499/- Only for 1 Year

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Join our Online Test Series for CBSE, ICSE, JEE, NEET and Other Exams

Editable Study Materials for Your Institute - CBSE, ICSE, State Boards (Maharashtra & Karnataka), JEE, NEET, FOUNDATION, OLYMPIADS, PPTs

Discover more from Gurukul of Excellence

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

40 Important Judgments that Transformed India

Last updated on September 23, 2022 by Alex Andrews George

The way democracy now functions in India owes a lot to many Supreme Court judgments .

It is quite interesting to learn how the Supreme Court judgments protected the essence of the Indian Constitution, strengthened democracy, and transformed the lives of ordinary citizens of India.

The book “ Important Judgments that transformed India ” presents an easy understanding of the landmark court cases that everyone needs to know about.

Table of Contents

40 Important Judgments that Transformed India: List of Cases

• Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)
• State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
• K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959)
• Berubari Union v. Unknown (1960)
• Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
• I. C. Golaknath and Others v. State of Punjab and Another (1967)
• Keshavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala (1973)
• ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
•  Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
• Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union of India (1980)
• Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and others (1985)
• Dr. D. C. Wadhwa and others v. State of Bihar and others (1986)
• M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and others (1986)
• Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1989)
• Indira Sawhney and others v. Union of India (1992)
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
• Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
• Vineet Narain and others v. Union of India (1997)
• Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998)
• Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others (2006)
• M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India (2006)
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India and others (2013)
• T. S. R. Subramanian and others v. Union of India and others (2013)
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others (2016)
• Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another v. Union of India and others (2017)
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. the State of Kerala (2018)
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)
• Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India (2018)
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and others (2020)
• Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora and others (2020)
• Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India (2020)
• Laxmibai Chandaragi and another v. State of Karnataka and others (2021)
• Mohammad Salimullah and another v. Union of India and others (2021)
• Farzana Batool v. Union of India and others (2021)
• Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India and others (2021)
• Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and another (2022)

100+ Landmark Supreme Court Judgments in Brief

This book includes a lot of additional judgments. The summary of 100+ landmark Supreme Court judgments is given in table format for quick learning and revision.

Some of the other cases included in this book include:

• AK Gopalan Vs State of Madras (1950)
• State of Madras Vs Smt. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
• Shankari Prasad Vs Union of India (1951)
• M. P. Sharma And Others Vs Satish Chandra (1954)
• Kharak Singh Vs The State Of U.P. & Others (1962)
• Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (1965)
• Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar (1979)
• S.P. Gupta vs. President of India and others (1981)
• Indian Express Newspapers Vs Union Of India & Ors (1984)
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors Vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (2002)
• Jaya Bachchan Vs Union of India And Ors (2006)
• Independent Thought Vs Union Of India (2017)
• Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs Union of India (2018)
• Shakti Vahini Vs Union Of India (2018)

Famous Cases that made news headlines

The book also covers the summary of many famous cases that were constantly in news. Some of these include:

• Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case (1989)
• I.R.Coelho vs the State of Tamil Nadu and Others: The I. R. Coelho Case (2007)
• People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India: The Nota Case (2013):  
• Manoharl Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi: The Rafale Case (2018)
• M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das: The Ayodhya Case (2019)

Cases Laws: Conflict Areas vs Judgments

In exams, reverse thinking is also tested. That means with respect to a particular topic, you may need to mention all related case laws.

For example, in UPSC CSE Mains 2022 , the Commission had asked to mention case laws connected with Environment. In another question, UPSC asked to write case laws connected with the Representation of People’s Act.

The Important Judgments that transformed India (IJTTI) book includes special tables which compile such case laws. This will be extremely useful in UPSC/Law exams.

Appendices in the book Important Judgments that Transformed India 2nd Edition

• Appendix-1: 100+ Landmark Supreme Court Judgments in Brief
• Appendix-2: Famous Cases that made news headlines
• Appendix-3: Conflict Areas v. Judgments
• Appendix-4: Mindmaps Which Help You Understand the Indian Polity
• Appendix-5: Indian Judicial Doctrines – Principles of Constitutional Law Explained
• Appendix-6: Common Legal Terms
• Appendix-7: Previous Years’ Solved UPSC CSE (Prelims) Questions
• Appendix-8: Previous Years’ Solved UPSC CSE (Mains) Questions

Salient Features of the Important Judgments that Transformed India 2 Edition

• A detailed overview of 40 landmark Supreme Court judgments.
• An additional compilation of 100+ Supreme Court judgments with respect to the main area of conflict.
• The complicated legal context behind various Supreme Court cases is made simple and easy to understand.
• Each chapter is divided into introduction, background, arguments, judgment, importance and impact.

Special Attractions of the 2nd Edition of IJTTI

• A lot of value-added content to make your answers stand out.
• Each chapter starts with thought-provoking questions to understand the case’s significance.
• Learn from easy-to-understand tables and mindmaps.
• Master Judicial Doctrines and Judicial Terms.
• Revise UPSC Civil Services Preliminary and Main Examination Previous Year Questions and Answers from the topic.

Book Details

• Author: Alex Andrews George
• Publisher: ‎ McGraw Hill
• Language: ‎ English
• Paperback: ‎ 320 pages
• ISBN-10‏: ‎ 9355321295
• ISBN-13: ‎ 9789355321299

Buy Important Judgments that Transformed India – 2nd Edition

• Buy on Amazon
• Buy on Flipkart
• Buy on Snapdeal

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

About Alex Andrews George

Alex Andrews George is a mentor, author, and social entrepreneur. Alex is the founder of ClearIAS and one of the expert Civil Service Exam Trainers in India.

He is the author of many best-seller books like 'Important Judgments that transformed India' and 'Important Acts that transformed India'.

A trusted mentor and pioneer in online training , Alex's guidance, strategies, study-materials, and mock-exams have helped many aspirants to become IAS, IPS, and IFS officers.

Reader Interactions

September 14, 2023 at 12:41 pm

Thank you sharing an Amazing Content.

March 9, 2024 at 11:43 am

sir hindi me milegi kya ye book

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

Take ClearIAS Mock Exams: Analyse Your Progress

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your All-India Ranking

Ias/ips/ifs online coaching: target cse 2025.

Are you struggling to finish the UPSC CSE syllabus without proper guidance?

Advertisement

Supported by

Here’s Where Trump’s Other Cases Stand

After being convicted in a Manhattan courtroom, the former president still faces charges in three criminal prosecutions, all of which are tangled up in procedural delays.

• Share full article

By Alan Feuer and Danny Hakim

Former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan came to an end this week when a jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to upset his 2016 presidential campaign.

But Mr. Trump is still facing federal charges, brought by a special counsel, in two cases: one in Florida, where he is accused of illegally holding on to classified documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them, and one in Washington, D.C., where he’s accused of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He faces similar election-tampering charges in a third case brought by a local prosecutor in Georgia.

The proceedings — all of which are bogged down in delays — can be confusing to keep track of. Here are updates on where each of them stands.

Federal Documents Case

In this case, Mr. Trump is accused of illegally holding on to a large amount of sensitive national security material after leaving office and then plotting to obstruct repeated efforts by the government to get it back. The charges were brought by Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to oversee the federal investigations into Mr. Trump.

The case is tied up in efforts by Mr. Trump’s lawyers to have the charges against him dismissed before they go to trial. To that end, the lawyers have filed a barrage of motions attacking the indictment on a number of grounds. Those include claims that Mr. Smith was improperly appointed to his job and that he filed the charges as part of a politicized effort to harm Mr. Trump.

Judge Aileen M. Cannon , who is overseeing the case, recently scrapped the trial’s start date — it had been set to begin in May — and has not yet scheduled a new one. In doing so, she cited the “myriad and interconnected” legal issues she has yet to resolve.

It appears increasingly unlikely that the case will go in front of a jury before the election in November. That is largely because of Judge Cannon’s habit of holding time-consuming hearings on arguments raised by the defense that many other judges would have decided on the merits of written filings.

Should Mr. Trump be elected, he could seek to have his Justice Department dismiss the charges. Even without that step, department policy forbids prosecuting a sitting president.

Federal Election Subversion Case

Last summer, Mr. Smith charged Mr. Trump with conspiring to subvert democracy and stay in power against the will of voters following his loss in the 2020 election.

The case has been frozen in place since early December as a series of courts in Washington have considered an expansive and novel claim he has raised in his own defense: that he is immune to all of the charges in the indictment because they arose from official acts he took while he was president.

In a few weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to render a final decision on the question of immunity, and the ruling by the justices will go a long way in determining whether the case will go to trial sooner rather than later.

There is a narrow path for a trial to be held before November. But it is probably more likely that the case will be sent back to the district court judge, Tanya S. Chutkan, to determine which of the charges stemmed from official acts and which should be thought of as strictly private ones. That process, which could affect the scope of the charges a jury ends up hearing, could take weeks or even months to complete.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on another case that could affect the scope and timing of the election interference prosecution. That case concerns the viability of a federal obstruction law that prosecutors have used to accuse Mr. Trump of encouraging a mob of his supporters to disrupt the certification of the election that took place at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Georgia Election Case

Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies were indicted in Fulton County, Ga., last August, in a broad election interference case. The case was brought by the Fulton County district attorney, Fani T. Willis.

But the complex racketeering case is highly unlikely to go to trial this year. Part of the delay stems from recent revelations of an affair between Ms. Willis and the lawyer she hired to run the case, Nathan Wade. Defense lawyers said it created an untenable conflict of interest.

The presiding judge, Scott McAfee , held a number of hearings on the topic earlier this year, but ultimately decided not to disqualify Ms. Willis, as long as Mr. Wade stepped aside, which he did.

Those hearings are hardly the only matter weighing on the case. Dozens of pretrial motions have yet to be resolved, including recent sparring over the precedent in a legal case from the 1890s. Then there are appeals. Defense lawyers have appealed the disqualification decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals, while Ms. Willis’s office has appealed Judge McAfee’s decision to quash a few charges.

Legal observers think a trial is likely to take place sometime next year, but if Mr. Trump is elected president, it may take place without him. Whether a sitting president can be tried in a state court is an untested legal matter that is sure to be fought out in higher courts.

Four of the 19 original defendants have already pleaded guilty and taken deals with the prosecution, including Sidney Powell, once one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal and outspoken defenders, and Kenneth Chesebro, a legal architect of the plan to deploy fake electors who has become a witness in five different state election inquiries.

Jenna Ellis, another defendant and a former Trump lawyer, said in court during her tearful guilty plea : “If I knew then what I know now, I would have declined to represent Donald Trump in these postelection challenges,” adding, “I look back on this experience with deep remorse.”

Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.  More about Alan Feuer

Danny Hakim is a reporter on the Investigations team at The Times, focused primarily on politics. More about Danny Hakim

Sign Up or Login

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Related Articles

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Sotomayor recalls closing her door and crying in despair over SCOTUS rulings

L iberal US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has admitted she sometimes weeps after losses on major cases before the conservative-led panel.

“There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” the Bronx-born jurist recalled at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University last week.

“There have been those days. And there are likely to be more,” she said.

Sotomayor, one of three liberal justices on the high court, spoke at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study while receiving the Radcliffe Medal on Friday.

She declined to specify which cases in particular drove her to tears, but she underscored the need to keep fighting, even in moments of despair.

“There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad,” she said. “And there are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation. We all do. But you have to own it. You have to accept it. You have to shed the tears, and then you have to wipe them and get up and fight some more.”

The 69-year-old judge has previously discussed her deep frustrations with the court since its shift to the right, ushered in by former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices.

She echoed a similar sentiment in January while speaking at the University of California , Berkeley School of Law, reflecting that “every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart.

“But I have to get up the next morning and keep on fighting,” she said at the time.

During those January remarks, Sotomayor also spoke about the demanding workload that justices on the nation’s highest court face.

“Cases are bigger. They’re more demanding. The number of amici [participating parties] are greater, and you know that our emergency calendar is so much more active — I’m tired,” she said at the time,  according Bloomberg Law .

“There used to be a time when we had a good chunk of the summer break. Not anymore. The emergency calendar is busy almost on a weekly basis,” the justice said.

Sotomayor has been under pressure from progressives to step down so that President Biden can name a replacement, after liberals expressed concerns about her health and age. Sotomayor, a diabetic, has been forced to travel with a medic in the past.

Those pushing for her to retire have been haunted by late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on the bench in 2020, enabling Trump to name her replacement and gain a conservative seat.

Sotomayor’s remarks last week come as the Supreme Court weighs a bevy of high-profile cases this term, including two on abortion and Trump’s prosecution-immunity claims.

On Thursday, she was once again in the minority on a key redistricting case out of South Carolina in which the high court sided with Republicans 6-3. The court ruled that legitimate partisan goals, rather than racial motives, fueled the district drawing process.

Sotomayor was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama in 2009. She is the first Latina to serve as a justice and the third woman.