Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Contesting the Constitution : conservative Christian litigators and their impact

Hacker, Hans J.

Abstract Details

2000, Doctor of Philosophy, Ohio State University, Political Science.

My dissertation research explores the influence of conservative Christian litigating interests on court-crafted policy. I employ qualitative analyses to develop rich descriptions of three standard-bearing Christian litigating firms representing the Religious Right in court. I investigate how these firms establish goals, acquire resources, and bring those resources to bear in an effort to achieve their goals in court. All three groups have participated at all levels of the court system, litigating to influence outcomes in such key social policy areas as abortion, protestation, and religious expression in the public schools and square. Data on the groups and their litigation behavior are drawn from elite interviews of firm personnel, from court records, media sources, and published and unpublished materials by and about the groups.

In the course of this analysis, I identify a pattern in the behavior of Christian litigation firms that has implications for our understanding of group litigation. Each of the three groups has taken different approaches to litigation. These different approaches cannot be explained by variation in resources or group goals as defined in conventional interest group studies. I find that while these influential groups articulate similar goals, they use the courts very differently. I explore why similarly situated religious groups develop such divergent litigation agendas.

In the final analyses of the project, I posit that the concept of religious ideology helps define what methods groups will employ to influence policy. Group orientation to policy influence diverges between "principled" and "pragmatic." A pragmatic approach is characterized by willingness to depart from strict principle and play by the norms al' policy makers in the courts. A principled approach lacks willingness to depart from religious and ideological principle to achieve policy influence. Different approaches may determine preferred strategies for achieving goals, relative emphasis on trial and appellate litigation, and capacity to present courts with legal arguments for policy change.

The distinction between these two approaches is especially relevant to groups that are guided by strong religious views. But it is relevant to other types of groups as well. The extension of this distinction to other types of litigating interests may help refine our approach to studying those groups and help to explain patterns of behavior within those types. Thus, I seek to contribute to theory building on the forces that shape the behavior of elite interest group leadership and the behavior of groups in the litigation process. Further. I seek to enhance what we know about the set of conservative Christian litigators that are playing an increasingly active role in the courts.

Lawrence Baum (Advisor)
Gregory Caldeira (Committee Member)
Elliot Slotnick (Committee Member)
351 p.

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Hacker, H. J. (2000). Contesting the Constitution : conservative Christian litigators and their impact [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1234460550

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Hacker, Hans. Contesting the Constitution : conservative Christian litigators and their impact. 2000. Ohio State University, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1234460550.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Hacker, Hans. "Contesting the Constitution : conservative Christian litigators and their impact." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 2000. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1234460550

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)