Contesting the constitution: Conservative Christian litigators and their impact

My dissertation research explores conservative Christian litigating interests characteristics and influence on court-crafted policy. I employ qualitative analyses to develop rich descriptions of three standard-bearing Christian litigating firms representing the Religious Right in court. I investigate how these firms establish goals, acquire resources, and bring those resources to bear in an effort to achieve their goals in court. All three groups have participated at all levels of the court system, litigating to influence policy in such key areas as abortion rights, abortion protestation, and religious expression in the public schools and square. Data on the groups and their litigation behavior are drawn from elite interviews of firm personnel, from court records, media sources, and published and unpublished materials by and about the groups.; In the course of this analysis, I identify a pattern in the behavior of Christian litigation firms that was unexpected and that has implications for our understanding of group litigation. The three groups to which I gave primary attention have taken different approaches to litigation that cannot be explained by variation in resources or group goals as defined in conventional interest group studies. I find that while these influential groups articulate similar goals, they use the courts very differently. I explore why similarly situated religious groups develop such divergent litigation agendas.; In the final analyses of the project, I posit that the concept of religious ideology helps define what methods groups will employ to influence policy. While conservative Christian litigating interests share basic religious and ideological views, the impact of these views on litigation differs significantly across groups. Group orientation to policy influence diverges between "principled" and "pragmatic." A pragmatic approach is characterized by willingness to depart from strict principle and play by the norms of policy makers in the courts. A principled approach lacks willingness to depart from religious and ideological principle to achieve policy influence. I found that principled and pragmatic approaches lead to quite different litigation behavior, extending to preferred strategies for achieving goals, relative emphasis on trial and appellate litigation, and capacity to present courts with legal arguments for policy change.