The Public Face of the 'Litigation State:' Federal Empowerment of Litigation by State Governments
American Political Science Association Annual Meeting
2012
- 51Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage51
- Downloads38
- Abstract Views13
Lecture / Presentation Description
Scholars have recently begun exploring the construction of what Sean Farhang has termed the “litigation state” – namely, the distinctly American way in which contemporary federal programs are enforced by means of litigation. The attention in this literature to date has focused on why Congress has encouraged private litigation to enforce various statutory programs. This paper examines the emergence of a related and no less important development – the federal government’s encouragement of state government litigators to help enforce federal regulatory programs, especially state attorneys general ("AGs"). Examining several decades’ worth of congressional actions, court decisions, and federal administrative initiatives that have empowered state AGs, this paper explores how and why Congress and other federal institutions have placed increasing reliance on state AGs to enforce federal law. This question has become important not only because this federal empowerment has been a major driver of the prominent regulatory role state AGs have taken on in recent years, but because the political dynamic concerning state litigation differs from other aspects of the litigation state.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know