For half a century before 1937, populists, progressives, and labor leaders complained bitterly that a "judicial oligarchy" impeded social and economic reform by imposing crippling restraints on trade unions and nullifying legislation that regulated business corporations. "A Muted Fury," the first study of this neglected chapter in American political and legal history, explains the origins of hostility toward the courts during the Progressive Era, examines in detail the many measures that antagonists of the judiciary proposed for the curtailment of judicial power, and evaluates the successes and failures of the anti-court movements.

Tapping a broad array of sources, including popular literature and unpublished manuscripts, William Ross demonstrates that this widespread fury against the judiciary was muted by many factors, including respect for judicial power, internal divisions among the judiciary's critics, institutional obstacles to reform, and the judiciary's own willingness to mitigate its hostility toward progressive legislation and labor. Ross argues that persistent criticism of the courts influenced judicial behavior, even though the antagonists of the courts failed in their many efforts to curb judicial power. The book's interdisciplinary exploration of the complex interactions among politics, public opinion, judicial decision-making, the legislative process, and the activities of organized interest groups provides fresh insights into the perennial controversy over the scope of judicial power in America.

Originally published in 1993.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

For half a century before 1937, populists, progressives, and labor leaders complained bitterly that a "judicial oligarchy" impeded social and economic reform by imposing crippling restraints on trade unions and nullifying legislation that regulated business corporations. A Muted Fury, the first study of this neglected chapter in American political and legal history, explains the origins of hostility toward the courts during the Progressive Era, examines in detail the many measures that antagonists of the judiciary proposed for the curtailment of judicial power, and evaluates the successes and failures of the anti-court movements. Tapping a broad array of sources, including popular literature and unpublished manuscripts, William Ross demonstrates that this widespread fury against the judiciary was muted by many factors, including respect for judicial power, internal divisions among the judiciary's critics, institutional obstacles to reform, and the judiciary's own willingness to mitigate its hostility toward progressive legislation and labor. Ross argues that persistent criticism of the courts influenced judicial behavior, even though the antagonists of the courts failed in their many efforts to curb judicial power. The book's interdisciplinary exploration of the complex interactions among politics, public opinion, judicial decision-making, the legislative process, and the activities of organized interest groups provides fresh insights into the perennial controversy over the scope of judicial power in America. Originally published in 1994. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

The First World War profoundly affected the American political system by transforming constitutional law and providing the predicate for the modern administrative state. In this groundbreaking study, William G. Ross examines the social, political, economic and legal forces that generated this rapid change. Ross explains how the war increased federal and state economic regulatory powers, transferred power from Congress to the President, and altered federalism by enhancing the powers of the federal government. He demonstrates how social changes generated by the war provided a catalyst for the expansion of personal liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the rights of women, racial minorities, and industrial workers. Through a study of constitutional law, gender, race, economics, labor, the prohibition movement, international relations, civil liberties, and society, this book provides a major contribution to our understanding of the development of the American Constitution.

During the 1930s the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned its longtime function as an arbiter of economic regulation and assumed its modern role as a guardian of personal liberties. William G. Ross analyzes this turbulent period of constitutional transition and the leadership of one of its central participants in ""The Chief Justiceship of Charles Evans Hughes, 1930-1941"". Tapping into a broad array of primary and secondary sources, Ross explores the complex interaction between the court and the political, economic, and cultural forces that transformed the nation during the Great Depression. Written with an appreciation for both the legal and historical contexts, this comprehensive volume explores how the Hughes Court removed constitutional impediments to the development of the administrative state by relaxing restrictions previously invoked to nullify federal and state economic regulatory legislation. Ross maps the expansion of safeguards for freedoms of speech, press, and religion and the extension of rights of criminal defendants and racial minorities. Ross holds that the Hughes Court's germinal decisions championing the rights of African Americans helped to lay the legal foundations for the civil rights movement. Throughout his study Ross emphasizes how Chief Justice Hughes' brilliant administrative abilities and political acumen helped to preserve the Court's power and prestige during a period when the body's rulings were viewed as intensely controversial. Ross concludes that on balance the Hughes Court's decisions were more evolutionary than revolutionary but that the court also reflected the influence of the social changes of the era, especially after the appointment of justices who espoused the New Deal values of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.