The Federalist Society, acting as a Political Epistemic Network, has effectively employed a long-term strategy to engineer a Supreme Court that propagates conservative legal ideology. The organizational structure of the Federalist Society finds, recruits, and retain members who will wield the organizational strategies of the organizations to achieve policy outcomes not just for members of the organization, but for the greater population. This thesis demonstrates a clear relationship between the long-term ideological and institutional influence of the Federalist Society and the U.S. Supreme Court. This significant relationship poses a fundamental threat to the execution of equal protection under the law and an erosion of democratic norms. This thesis proposes possible legislative and constitutional remedies to counter the increasing polarization of the Supreme Court, including proposed reforms such as term limits and restructuring the court which could make inroads to promoting neutrality on the Court and re-establishing a greater degree of public trust. / Master of Arts / The modern Supreme Court must contend with an unprecedented degree of outside influence from ideologically driven special interest groups. Since 1982, there is no outside special interest group of more consequence than the Federalist Society. Modern special interest groups can boast deeper financial reserves, decades of relationship with policy makers, and ideological motivations that are not simply deeply held, but singularly motivating. This is particularly true for the Federalist Society. The conservative legal movement has effectively employed a long-term strategy to shape the Court in its own image, minimizing a reliance on an electorate that is more diverse and historically less likely to embrace conservative principles. Above any other political ally or mechanism, that strategy and its implementation has relied on the commitment, financing, and participation of the Federalist Society. This thesis examines the breadth and consequences of the Federalist Society's influence on the modern Court and proposes theoretical reforms that could help ensure a more ideologically balanced court.

abstract: Immigration courts fail to live up to courtroom ideals. Around 2009, proposals were offered to address the problems of these troubled courts. My study illustrates the inevitable linkage between court reform proposals and conceptions of fairness and efficiency, and ultimately justice. I ask: (1) From the perspective of attorneys defending immigrants' rights, what are the obstacles to justice? How should they be addressed? And (2) How do proposals speak to these attorneys' concerns and proposed resolutions? The proposals reviewed generally favor restructuring the court. On the other hand, immigration (cause) lawyers remain unconvinced that current proposals to reform the courts' structure would be successful at addressing the pivotal issues of these courts: confounding laws and problematic personnel. They are particularly concerned about the legal needs and rights of immigrants and how reforms may affect their current and potential clients. With this in mind, they prefer incremental changes - such as extending pro bono programs - to the system. These findings suggest the importance of professional location in conceptualizing justice through law. They offer rich ground for theorizing about courts and politics, and justice in immigration adjudication. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Justice Studies 2013