This is an appreciation of the scholarship of Professor Stephen Subrin. In includes a case study of Graves v. Arpaio:
My case study of Graves v. Arpaio, provided in this part, lays a foundation for my claims about American democracy and the structural reform trial. The case involves a constitutional challenge to the conditions of jails in Maricopa County, Arizona, institutions run by the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The plaintiffs, a class of pretrial detainees, established the defendants' liability after what amounted to a bench trial in Autumn 2008, but not before nearly a decade of courtroom fights with an adversary famous for his stubborn refusal to compromise or cooperate. The story unfolds at some length, in part because I believe it is a good one, in part because the case itself has gone on for so long, and in part because it has a lot of relevant lessons to teach. The case's history divides into three phases. The first lasted from 1977 to 1981. The second, a period of gridlock, began in 1998 and continued for ten frustrating years. The third lasted for only a few months in 2008 before ending in trial. This final phase demonstrates the efficacy that aggressive case management and trial can have in the face of recalcitrant political power.