Abstract

The practice of using courts to foster social change, once confined to the USA, has emerged as a worldwide phenomenon. Foreign practice reflects indigenous forms but faces criticisms similar to that in the USA: that it is ineffective, antidemocratic, and counterproductive. The essay meets these criticisms, first, by recasting US public law litigation as a form of politics that challenges the status quo by forging alliances, changing discursive frames, and disciplining private and public decision making. Looking abroad, the essay emphasizes public law litigation as a meditative institution that facilitates political action and aids in regulatory enforcement where administrative mechanisms are weak or regulation requires ongoing elaboration. Finally, the essay suggests that criticisms of public law litigation tend to neglect three factors: the actual and not assumed comparative advantages of different institutional actors, the role of temporal conditions in affecting social change, and the ubiquity of complex, not dichotomous, relations