Social movements have increasingly incorporated legal strategies into their repertoires of contention. Yet, both sociolegal and social movement scholarship lack a systematic and theoretically coherent way to conceptualize legal mobilization. In fact, scholars disagree (sometimes in fundamental ways) about what constitutes legal mobilization, which has resulted in conceptual slippage around how the term is used. This article proposes a more self-conscious approach that will facilitate the aggregation of findings across studies. To do so, it sets forth a systematic conceptualization of legal mobilization and situates it within a typology of uses of the law. It also contextualizes the typology with respect to emerging literatures within social movement and sociolegal scholarship and proposes areas for further research that would benefit from a more rigorous conceptualization of legal mobilization.

Though the Colombian Constitutional Court has had a lead role in granting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) rights since 1998, conservatives mobilizing against LGBT rights between 1991 and 2007 were active in Congress and the streets rather than in court. After 2007, however, conservatives have maintained consistent opposition to rights claims made by LGBT people in the Constitutional Court. This article draws from fieldwork examining the significance of the Constitutional Court’s transition from granting rights to LGBT people as individuals to granting rights to LGBT people as couples and potential families to theorize conservative legal mobilization, particularly moral conservatism. To account for the rise of conservative legal mobilization against LGBT rights in Colombia in 2007, this article expands on the legal opportunity structure model. It theorizes that legal threats––that is, changes in legal rules that are perceived to increase the costs of mobilization or the expected costs of not taking action––are among the factors that lead movements to engage in legal mobilization, even if legal opportunities are not expanding.

Scholars have long found profound normative and structural differences between the privacy movements of Europe and the United States, alongside incompatible regimes of regulation. After 9/11, both Europe and the U.S. adopted increasingly intrusive digital security measures, which impinged on the privacy of commercial and personal data. Both the overlap in privacy regimes and the securitization of the two regimes were uncovered by Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013. The eventual result was the passage of a European privacy protection regulation, the General Data Protection Regulation, in 2016 and greater transnational diffusion and transnational cooperation among European and American privacy activists. But has this convergence produced a transnational movement for privacy? Studying three mechanisms of transnational mobilization—externalization, diffusion, and collective transnationalism—this article employs a political opportunity framework to understand how international events have increased the inclination and the capacity of nationally and regionally based privacy groups to come together in contentious collective action.

Este artículo muestra lo poco teorizada que ha sido la relación entre el derecho y las estructuras de movilización de los movimientos sociales. Para avanzar en esta línea, propone una hipótesis sobre cuál fue el impacto de la Constitución de 1991 en el movimiento feminista. A través del estudio de caso de la campaña en torno a la Ley de Cuotas, se propone que el impacto más importante fue la creación de estructuras de movilización que le dieron un nuevo aire.

Predictive automation is a pervasive and archetypical example of the digital economy. Studying how Americans evaluate predictive automation is important because it affects corporate and state governance. However, we have relevant questions unanswered. We lack comparisons across use cases using a nationally representative sample. We also have yet to determine what are the key predictors of evaluations of predictive automation. This article uses the American Trends Panel’s 2018 wave ($n=4,594$) to study whether American adults think predictive automation is fair across four use cases: helping credit decisions, assisting parole decisions, filtering job applicants based on interview videos, and assessing job candidates based on resumes. Results from lasso regressions trained with 112 predictors reveal that people’s evaluations of predictive automation align with their views about social media, technology, and politics.