LAW & SOCIETY REVIEW
VOLUME 60 | NUMBER 3
September 2026
Articles
Abstract
Neoliberalism, once an economic doctrine responding to the failures of liberalism, has become a widely used concept in sociolegal scholarship. Law and society scholars often invoke it to explain sociolegal and punitive phenomena such as mass incarceration, inequality, and state transformation. But the concept’s analytic power is undermined when scholars conflate neoliberalism as a sociohistorical process with neoliberalism as a universal cause. Drawing on an intellectual history of neoliberalism’s evolving meanings, I identify two problems – ubiquity and a lack of counterfactual imagination – that limit its theoretical utility in sociolegal research. I argue that neoliberalism should be theorized as a contingent, sociohistorical process; only then can it function as a theory with meaningful consequents.
Automated administrative burden in algorithmic criminal record expungement
Author
Sarah Esther Lageson, Ericka B. Adams, and Elsa Y. Chen
Abstract
Administrative burden describes the learning costs, psychological costs, and compliance costs people face when attempting to interface with the government, particularly in seeking a benefit. Algorithmic and automated processes offer the potential of reducing administrative burdens, but scant empirical research has determined to what, if any effect. This study uses the case of criminal record expungement in two policy contexts: traditional, court petition-based systems and newly enacted automated systems, to understand if and how administrative burden persists, and whether and how these burdens operate differently in the context of the criminal legal system. Drawing on interviews with 105 expungement-eligible people, we find that while automated expungement schemes shift the burden from petitioner to state to initiate the process, automation inadvertently creates new administrative burdens via failure to notify, partial clearances, and opaque data processes. Furthermore, respondents described how automation failed to provide a sense of confirmation from the state that their sentence was truly completed, rehabilitation had been acknowledged, or that collateral consequences should no longer wield the same power. Overall, we argue that leveraging automation to reduce burdens must include information availability by design; otherwise policy reforms may fail to fully achieve their goals.
Litigant status, judicial ideology, and the gatekeeping of expert evidence
Author
Timothy O’Brien and Stephen Hawkins
Abstract
Judicial rulings on expert evidence determine which specialized knowledge enters the courtroom and, in doing so, shape the credibility of litigants and the legitimacy of their claims. This article examines how disparities in litigant status shape the judicial gatekeeping of expert evidence and how this process relates to the ideological context of the legal forum. Using data from a probability sample of 811 Daubert rulings from United States District Courts, our multinomial logistic regression models show that, overall, higher status litigants are more successful in excluding opposing evidence and in overcoming exclusionary motions. However, this aggregate relationship masks a pronounced ideological divide. Specifically, higher status litigants tend to be more successful in cases assigned to conservative judges while lower status litigants tend to be more successful in cases assigned to liberal judges. These findings illustrate how trial court decisions reflect broader institutional and ideological forces and suggest that ideological contexts can either amplify or temper structural inequalities in the courtroom.
Bearing witness to asylum seekers in an era of misinformation: the transformation of pro bono direct legal services into social change activism
Author
Pauline White Meeusen
Abstract
Providing pro bono legal services is an important professional obligation that ensures that people who cannot afford representation still realize their rights. Unlike impact litigation, which seeks to overturn unjust laws or create new rights, pro bono direct legal services are not typically seen as oriented toward creating social change. Drawing on longitudinal interviews with thirty-six lawyers and non-lawyer legal volunteers, this article explores how bearing witness became a mechanism that blended pro bono services with social movement-like collective action to transform direct legal services within two liminal legal environments, the U.S.–Mexico border and immigration detention. These activities included (1) asserting and publicizing truth in the face of misconceptions and misinformation so the American public understood what was occurring and demanded policy change, (2) recruiting more volunteers to assist asylum seekers and in turn speak out, and (3) documenting the human impact of immigration laws and policies to ensure future harms would not occur. Because interviewees took part in up to three waves of interviews between 2019 and 2023, I also address the perceived outcomes of these efforts, including that interviewees felt that they increased knowledge and shifted some individuals’ perspectives.
Courthouse funneling: how organizational mechanisms teach tenants to bargain in eviction court
Author
N. Hardaway and Matthew Clair
Abstract
Many legal disputes are resolved through settlement. The dominant theory explaining settlements – known as “bargaining in the shadow of the law” – assumes that litigants are informed, rational actors inclined to bargain toward a settlement prior to court proceedings. Yet many settlements are negotiated after litigants have appeared in court expecting to go to trial. This article argues that court organizational mechanisms play an undertheorized role in facilitating settlement agreements. To build theory on organizational mechanisms, we examine the case of eviction settlements. Drawing on ethnographic observations and interviews in a California eviction court, we find that organizational rules and workgroup norms funnel mostly unrepresented tenants – sometimes, in coercive ways – into unregulated hallway conversations with landlord attorneys and/or participation in the court’s mediation program. Through relational interactions with legal professionals in these organizational spaces, tenants are taught the risks of trial and the benefits of settlement. As a result, most tenants in our sample come to recognize their legal culpability and view settlement agreements as legitimate, even as their negotiated settlements reproduce their housing insecurity. We discuss implications for bargaining theory and research on housing insecurity.
Turning medical problems into legal problems: social media, legal consciousness, and transforming guilt into blame
Author
Mary Nell Trautner and Margaret Rex
Abstract
Sociolegal research has long found that most people “lump” their problems rather than pursue legal remedies. This study examines how social media transforms legal consciousness and mobilization. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 100 families who experienced the same birth injury, and 37 legal and medical professionals, we analyze how online communities shape perceptions of medical injury, blame attribution, and legal action. We find that parents often experience profound guilt, believing they are responsible for their child’s injury. However, participation in online support groups reframes their understanding of the injury, shifting their guilt toward medical providers and fostering legal claims. Our findings show that social media serves as a new “structuring structure,” shaping legal consciousness across geographic and social class boundaries. Social media serves as a powerful force in shaping parents’ perceptions of their child’s injuries as legally actionable, challenging existing assumptions about why people do or do not pursue legal action. By examining how online communities facilitate the transformation from guilt to blame and encourage legal mobilization, this study contributes to broader sociolegal debates about the role of digital technologies in shaping contemporary legal consciousness.
Book Review
Governing the End: The Making of Climate Change Loss and Damage. By Lisa Vanhala. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2025.
Author
Susan M. Sterett
Unlawful Advances: How Feminists Transformed Title IX. By Celene Reynolds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2025.
Author
Jessica Vincentia Marpaung
Courts Unmasked: Civil Legal System Reform and COVID-19. By Alyx Mark. University of Kansas Press, 2024.
Author
Hayley Munir
Translated Articles
Over rechtvaardigheid gesproken: een kwalitatief interviewonderzoek naar ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid onder verdachten in Nederlandse strafzaken
Author
Lisa Francine Myriam Ansems, Kees van den Bos, and Elaine Mak
Abstract
Kwalitatieve interviews onder 100 verdachten in Nederlandse strafzaken bieden inzicht in de vraag of ervaren procedurele rechtvaardigheid ertoe doet voor verdachten en, zo ja, welke componenten van procedurele rechtvaardigheid voor hen van belang zijn. Het epistemologische vertrekpunt van dit onderzoek verschilt van de kwantitatieve studies die het onderzoeksveld domineren, doordat dit onderzoek nagaat welke componenten van procedurele rechtvaardigheid respondenten eventueel zelf ter sprake brengen in plaats van respondenten te vragen naar vooraf bepaalde componenten van procedurele rechtvaardigheid. De grote meerderheid van de respondenten bracht zelf kwesties ter sprake die met procedurele rechtvaardigheid te maken hebben. Zes componenten vormden de kern van hun rechtvaardigheidspercepties: (1) informatie waarop beslissingen zijn gebaseerd, (2) bejegening, (3) gepaste aandacht, (4) neutraliteit, (5) inspraak en (6) zorgvuldigheid. Hoewel deze componenten overeenkomen met de literatuur over procedurele rechtvaardigheid, noemden respondenten sommige componenten vaker – en andere juist minder vaak – dan men op basis van de literatuur zou verwachten. In het bijzonder speelt neutraliteit een belangrijke rol in de Nederlandse rechtbankcontext die hier werd onderzocht.
Consentement et compliance: Des sujets utilisables dans les audiences d’hospitalisation psychiatrique sans consentement à Paris et à New York
Author
Alex V. Barnard and Aurélien Eberhardt
Abstract
Comment les professionnels du droit et de la médecine construisent-ils, au tribunal, le statut légal et l’état mental des patients, et comment ces derniers participent-ils à ces constructions? Cet article s’appuie sur l’analyse de 300 audiences à Paris et à New York, au cours desquelles des personnes hospitalisées sans consentement demandent leur sortie. Dans les deux villes, les tribunaux rejettent la grande majorité des requêtes. Ils le font en mobilisant, selon des modalités propres à chaque système, des répertoires juridiques et des capacités de contrôle qui transforment les patients en différents types de sujets utilisables: des personnes dont les droits sont formellement pris en compte à l’audience, mais qui sont néanmoins classées comme nécessitant les interventions sans consentement que la psychiatrie a les moyens d’assurer. À Paris, les professionnels du droit insistent sur les garanties procédurales tout en s’en remettant aux évaluations médicales du consentement des patients, entendu comme une disposition sous-jacente à accepter un traitement au long cours. À New York, les avocats contestent plus directement l’expertise psychiatrique, mais négocient avec médecins et patients autour de la compliance, comprise comme une acceptation de court terme de la médication. L’article propose ainsi de déplacer le regard des figures de sujets autonomes que les dispositifs médico-légaux et sociaux hybrides prétendent produire vers des formes plus contingentes et situées de sujets utilisables, qui rendent possible la coopération professionnelle et le traitement institutionnel dans un contexte de ressources limitées et d’extension des droits des patients.