What do you think?
Rate this book
Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable
A leading legal scholar explores how the constitutional right to seek justice has been restricted by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court’s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens’ constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus. Closing the Courthouse Door, by the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, is the first book to show the effect of these taken together, they add up to a growing limitation on citizens’ ability to defend their rights under the Constitution. Using many stories of people whose rights have been trampled yet who had no legal recourse, Chemerinsky argues that enforcing the Constitution should be the federal courts’ primary purpose, and they should not be barred from considering any constitutional question.
The Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court’s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens’ constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus. Closing the Courthouse Door, by the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, is the first book to show the effect of these taken together, they add up to a growing limitation on citizens’ ability to defend their rights under the Constitution. Using many stories of people whose rights have been trampled yet who had no legal recourse, Chemerinsky argues that enforcing the Constitution should be the federal courts’ primary purpose, and they should not be barred from considering any constitutional question.
280 pages, Hardcover
Published January 10, 2017
8 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 5, 2017
For those interested in access to the Federal Courts and the forward movement of Civil Rights in the United States this is a must read for nonlawyers and lawyers alike. For those who graduated from law school before 2009 and are working in state courts (or out of court altogether), Chapter 6 is especially important regarding new changes to the pleading requirements. Really a revolution has occurred underneath our noses while no one was looking -and all Americans need to know about this. I'm going to save you an exhaustive detailed summary of the book. Chemerinsky discusses many of the narrowing challenges that he discussed in an earlier work "The Case Against the Supreme Court." I have to say that I found his section on Sovereign Immunity to be the least persuasive of this book. On the one hand, he tries to make the case that a lot of changes have come about in just the last 40 years that make access to the Federal Courts increasingly difficult, however; Sovereign Immunity has been around since the founding of the Republic. It's not a new thing. Additionally, in my view, he levels criticisms against State Supreme Courts and State Appellate Courts that are just, well, hyperbole. He comes out on the side of those who believe that State Courts are unwilling to enforce Federal Constitutional rights.
One place I felt the book was particularly strong was where he tackles Article III textualists' arguments head on: most conservative justices make rulings based upon judicial bases that just do not exist in the Constitution (such as Sovereign Immunity). The folks who really need to read this book are our Federal legislators. Overall, a really well-researched and thought provoking read.
One place I felt the book was particularly strong was where he tackles Article III textualists' arguments head on: most conservative justices make rulings based upon judicial bases that just do not exist in the Constitution (such as Sovereign Immunity). The folks who really need to read this book are our Federal legislators. Overall, a really well-researched and thought provoking read.
July 2, 2017
Erwin Chemerinsky's take on the current status of Americans being able to receive redress for constitutional violations is an absolute horrifying read. While the author does an excellent job of explaining legal intricacies, at times I feel the prose loses readers who are less familiar with the law.
Overall though, its definitely a fascinating book which is worth reading. I look forward to reading more on the subject online and elsewhere to see how others feel about the author's arguments.
Overall though, its definitely a fascinating book which is worth reading. I look forward to reading more on the subject online and elsewhere to see how others feel about the author's arguments.
February 3, 2021
A timely read, both for where I am in school and in regards to current events. A bit technical with some of the legal aspects, but still manageable in terms of understanding the basic concepts he's conveying. I listened on audiobook so I'm sure I missed some of the details, but it also felt almost like a podcast and was fairly easy to follow along with his main point.
July 17, 2017
Professor Chemerinsky, "the second-most frequently cited American legal scholar," and dean of the UC Berkeley Law School has here written a very important book explaining how Supreme Court decisions have dramatically reduced American's access to the courts when their constitutional rights have been violated. The following Amazon blurb summarizes well:
"The Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as well: access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court’s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens’ constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus."
Chemerinsky not only documents these problems, but offers reasonable (but unlikely) remedies.
"The Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as well: access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court’s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens’ constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus."
Chemerinsky not only documents these problems, but offers reasonable (but unlikely) remedies.
April 14, 2017
A little more geared to someone with some legal education/experience. I found the assessment of the state of an American's constitutional rights deeply disturbing.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews