A few blurbs:
No Day in Court examines the sustained efforts of political and legal actors to scale back access to the courts in the decades since it was expanded, largely in the service of the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Since that time, for political, ideological, and practical reasons, a multifaceted group of actors have attempted to diminish the role that courts play in American politics. Although the conventional narrative of backlash focuses on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, Congress, and activists aiming to constrain the developments of the Civil Rights era, there is another very important element to this story, in which access to the courts for rights claims has been constricted by efforts that target the "rules of the game:" the institutional and legal procedures that govern what constitutes a valid legal case, who can be sued, how a case is adjudicated, and what remedies are available through courts. These more hidden, procedural changes are pursued by far more than just conservatives, and they often go overlooked. No Day in Court explores the politics of these strategies and the effect that they have today for access to justice in the U.S.
"One of the most important stories about America's civil rights revolution has been the story of retrenchment-how rights guarantees have been systematically limited by procedural reforms that restrict judicial remedies. Sarah Staszak shows how both supporters and opponents of the rights revolution have been complicit in rationing and blocking access to the courts. If you want to understand what happened to the promise of civil rights in this country, read this book." -- Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law SchoolMore information is available here.
"For the less advantaged, DeTocqueville's observation that in America every political issue becomes a judicial one may no longer be true. In a work of admirable breadth, Sarah Staszak shows that a congeries of organizations and movements have collaborated to reduce access to courts. After time well spent with Staszak's cogent argument, readers will never view alternative dispute resolution, administrative rulings, state sovereign immunity and attorney's fees quite the same way." -- Daniel Carpenter, Harvard University