1990•The University of Chicago Law ReviewRequires access

Public Interest Groups, Public Law Litigation, and Federal Rule 24(a)

Cindy Vreeland

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education' stands as a benchmark in two great revolutions.The first was social: the forced integration of schoolchildren played a key role in the struggle for racial equality.The second was judicial.In Brown, the Supreme Court "committed the federal courts to an enterprise of profound social reconstruction.' 2 Other forms of nontraditional litigation soon followed, such as challenges to legislative districting, suits assailing practices of mental hospitals and police departments, environmental enforcement actions, and constitutional attacks on government expenditures and statutes. 3 In his seminal article, Professor Abram Chayes identified these cases with the emergence of a new model of litigatipn: "public law litigation."' 4 He contrasts traditional litigation, which he characterizes as a mode of settling private disputes, with public law litigation, which instead centers on a "grievance about the content or conduct of policy-most often governmental policy, but frequently the policy of nongovernmental aggregates."'5 Public law cases usually set out "to vindicate important social values that affect numerous individuals and entities." 6According to Professor

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education' stands as a benchmark in two great revolutions.The first was social: the forced integration of schoolchildren played a key role in the struggle for racial equality.The second was judicial.In Brown, the Supreme Court "committed the federal courts to an enterprise of profound social reconstruction.' 2 Other forms of nontraditional litigation soon followed, such as challenges to legislative districting, suits assailing practices of mental hospitals and police departments, environmental enforcement actions, and constitutional attacks on government expenditures and statutes. 3 In his seminal article, Professor Abram Chayes identified these cases with the emergence of a new model of litigatipn: "public law litigation."' 4 He contrasts traditional litigation, which he characterizes as a mode of settling private disputes, with public law litigation, which instead centers on a "grievance about the content or conduct of policy-most often governmental policy, but frequently the policy of nongovernmental aggregates."'5 Public law cases usually set out "to vindicate important social values that affect numerous individuals and entities." 6According to Professor

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v Board of Education' stands as a benchmark in two great revolutions.The first was social: the forced integration of schoolchildren played a key role in the struggle for racial equality.The second was judicial.In Brown, the Supreme Court "committed the federal courts to an enterprise of profound social reconstruction.' 2 Other forms of nontraditional litigation soon followed, such as challenges to legislative districting, suits assailing practices of mental hospitals and police departments, environmental enforcement actions, and constitutional attacks on government expenditures and statutes. 3 In his seminal article, Professor Abram Chayes identified these cases with the emergence of a new model of litigatipn: "public law litigation."' 4 He contrasts traditional litigation, which he characterizes as a mode of settling private disputes, with public law litigation, which instead centers on a "grievance about the content or conduct of policy-most often governmental policy, but frequently the policy of nongovernmental aggregates."'5 Public law cases usually set out "to vindicate important social values that affect numerous individuals and entities." 6According to Professor

Key concepts: Public interest, Political science, Law, Law and economics, Business, Economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Public Interest Groups, Public Law Litigation, and Federal Rule 24(a) — Research Paper | ScholarLens