Over the past century, attitudes toward juvenile crime have alternated between rehabilitation and crime control, and even now are being revised in response to increasing gang violence. But by the 1960s, it had become obvious that juvenile offenders were being deprived of fundamental rights, leading Supreme Court Justice Fortas to declare that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone."

"The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice" takes in a century of change to focus on how the Supreme Court brought the juvenile court system under constitutional control. It describes in detail the case of Gerald Gault, an Arizona teenager who was sent to reform school for making an obscene phone call. Christopher Manfredi takes readers behind the scenes in this case to review its progress through the judicial system, discuss all pertinent briefs, and analyze the Supreme Court's 1967 decision that Gault had been denied due process.

As background to Gault, Manfredi also examines "Kent v. United States" (1966), which involved a juvenile accused of rape and robbery who was handed over to criminal court. He then reviews the significant cases following Gault--notably "In re Winship" (1970) and "McKeiver v. Pennsylvania" (1971)-and considers how the Supreme Court's "constitutional domestication" of juvenile courts affected further development of juvenile justice policy.

"In re Gault" was the first and most extensive decision imposing constitutionally-derived standards of due process on juvenile courts; yet it has received little attention in the literature because of its lack of drama and visibility. In showing how juvenile court reform became part of the constitutional agenda of the 1960s, Manfredi demonstrates why Gault became the principal vehicle for carrying out that reform and provides a means for better understanding the nature and limitations of social reform litigation.

Health Care and the Charter explores the systematic use of Charter litigation in the area of health care and the policy impact of the resulting judicial decisions. Christopher P. Manfredi and Antonia Maioni examine three of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Eldridge (1997) and Auton (2004) invited the Court to extend the scope of publicly funded services, while Chaouilli (2005) asked the Court to allow private health services. This book explores the paths that brought litigants to the Court, the arguments that supported their positions, and the substance of the victory or defeat the Court provided.

The introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 was accompanied by much fanfare and public debate. This book does not celebrate the Charter; rather it offers a critique by distinguished scholars of law and political science of its effect on democracy, judicial power, and the place of Quebec and Aboriginal peoples twenty-five years later. By employing diverse methodological approaches, contributors shift the focus of debate from the Charter's appropriateness to its impact - for better or worse - on political institutions, public policy, and conceptions of citizenship in the Canadian federation.

Since 1980, the Canadian women's movement has been an active participant in constitutional politics and Charter litigation. This book, through its focus on the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), presents a compelling examination of how Canadian feminists became key actors in developing the constitutional doctrine of equality, and how they mobilized that doctrine to support the movement's policy agenda.

For much of the second half of the twentieth century, America's courts--state and federal--have injected themselves into what many critics consider to be fundamentally moral or political disputes. By constitutionalizing these disputes, many feel that the courts have reduced the ability of Americans to engage in traditional, political modes of settling differences over issues that excite particular passion. While legal discourse is well suited to choosing decisive winners and losers, political discourse is perhaps more conducive to reasonable compromise and accommodation. In Courts and the Culture Wars Bradley C. S. Watson has brought together some of America's most distinguished names in constitutional theory and practice to consider the impact of judicial engagement in the moral, religious, and cultural realms--including such issues as school prayer, abortion, gay rights, and expressive speech.

For much of the second half of the twentieth century, America's courts--state and federal--have injected themselves into what many critics consider to be fundamentally moral or political disputes. By constitutionalizing these disputes, many feel that the courts have reduced the ability of Americans to engage in traditional, political modes of settling differences over issues that excite particular passion. While legal discourse is well suited to choosing decisive winners and losers, political discourse is perhaps more conducive to reasonable compromise and accommodation. In Courts and the Culture Wars Bradley C. S. Watson has brought together some of America's most distinguished names in constitutional theory and practice to consider the impact of judicial engagement in the moral, religious, and cultural realms--including such issues as school prayer, abortion, gay rights, and expressive speech.

Since 1980, the Canadian women's movement has been an active participant in constitutional politics and Charter litigation. This book, through its focus on the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), presents a compelling examination of how Canadian feminists became key actors in developing the constitutional doctrine of equality, and how they mobilized that doctrine to support the movement's policy agenda. The case of LEAF, an organization that had as its goal the use of Charter litigation to influence legal rules and public policy, provides rich ground for Manfredi's keen analysis of legal mobilization. In a multitude of areas such as abortion, pornography, sexual assault, family law, and gay and lesbian rights, LEAF has intervened before the Supreme Court to bring its understanding of equality to bear on legal policy development. This study offers a deft examination of LEAF's arguments and seeks to understand how they affected the Court's consideration of the issues. Perhaps most importantly, it also contemplates the long-term effects of mobilization, and considers the social impact of the legal doctrine that has emerged from LEAF cases. A major contribution to law and s