The Hollow Hope Summary

Gerald Rosenberg, Stuart Scheingold, and Charles Epp are three influential voices in the debate over law’s capacity to achieve social change. When speaking of law in this context, the authors are focused on court decisions and look to the Supreme Court for most of their case studies of interest. Although each avoids a simple “Yes, courts are effective” or “No, they are not” theory of social change, there are both overlaps and disparities among their respective claims. Not only do they fall on different points on the spectrum of whether or not courts are effective change makers, they also stress different reasons for why or why not this is this case –how court action can be meaningful for progress. Taken together, their arguments address both

He recognizes that two prevailing views of courts’ roles are each insufficient explanations: the “dynamic court” view that the judiciary can act for the otherwise politically disadvantaged in the face of opposition and the “constrained court” view that the court is by its nature largely unable to do so. He does conclude that the latter is a more accurate description of reality. He directly relates the dynamic court view to the “myth of rights” – the belief in rights’ intrinsic existence and power – described by Scheingold. Although Scheingold also approaches rights with skepticism, he ultimately gives more weight than does Rosenberg to their power, as far as the myth itself can serve as a political resource. In his more contemporary preface, Scheingold acknowledges Rosenberg’s evidence of the impotence of the courts. However, he counts it as irrelevant to the development of a new politics of rights. Scheingold does, however, consider Epp’s work as building toward what a new iteration of the politics of rights would ideally look like. Epp’s primary claim is that support structures – which can include the provision of financial support and specifically the ability to afford legal aid – are necessary to facilitate the actual impact of formal, symbolic

In the case of civil rights, what happened in the courtroom was merely a reflection of the growing pressure outside; the court itself did not help build this pressure. Using evidence on popular attitudes, Rosenberg largely dismisses the claim of the dynamic court view that courts are “educators” able to influence the hearts and minds of society. In terms of implementation, compliance is achieved when there are tangible costs for noncompliance such as loss of federal funding or competitive edge in the