Courts Unmasked: Civil Legal System Reform and COVID-19 by Alyx Mark engages the judicial administration literature to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on civil litigation in the states. Mark thoughtfully explores how institutional design, such as administrative authority and centralization, influenced court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the COVID-19 pandemic is the focus of the analysis in this book, the book’s theoretical framework is an incredibly valuable contribution to the literature on state courts and thoughtfully illuminates how state supreme courts impact state lower courts and how lower courts respond to state supreme court directives. Despite covering complex topics, Mark does an excellent job of making this book accessible to people with varying levels of familiarity with the judiciary and judicial administrative processes.
In chapter one, Mark outlines the variation in administrative structures in our state courts. She demonstrates that some state supreme courts have far-reaching administrative authority, while other state supreme courts share authority or lack authority altogether. She also shows that local court rules range from discouraging local rulemaking to permissive local rulemaking. The first chapter of this text provides a concise overview of the variation in administrative structures for our state courts while introducing the reader to the existing judicial administration literature.
In chapter two, Mark develops administrative centralization scores for the states and discusses her focus on the transition to virtual and hybrid activities in state courts. Using her measure of centralization, states are divided into categories: centralized versus decentralized. She argues that highly centralized systems used policies and language that gave them control over shifting to new technologies. In contrast, less centralized systems gave local courts the discretion to shift to new technologies as they saw fit. An analysis of policy documents issued by courts during the first four months of the pandemic reveals support for her argument. The data utilized in this chapter represents an impressive data collection effort.
In chapter three, Mark shifts her focus to lower courts arguing that despite state supreme courts having formal policy control over some administrative policy tools, there are differences in implementation behavior within systems. The variation in implementation behavior is linked to a state supreme court’s capacity in addition to lower court actors’ alignment with state supreme court preferences and their individual views on what will work best in their locale. This chapter relies on data that Mark collected from interviews with court actors. Mark conducted a total of 58 interviews with judges, court staff, and clerks from three states with varying levels of control over administrative policy tools. Again, Mark’s data collection efforts in this chapter should be applauded. She includes rich excerpts from her interviews in this chapter, and she identifies several themes that align with her theoretical expectations.
In chapter four, Mark discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted courts in the long-term with a special focus on technology. Building on the theory she presented in chapter two, Mark argues that the level of centralization in a system influenced how the adoption of new technologies unfolded in the states. Another important component of this chapter is Mark’s discussion of non-emergency situations. Mark acknowledges that in non-emergent settings, there is more deliberation and consultation by state supreme court actors.
Mark’s book is an exceptional endeavor into court administrative structures and how levels of centralization, as well as the preferences of lower court actors, influence changes to court operations and compliance. This book is an essential addition and incredible contribution to the judicial politics and judicial administration literatures.
