Courts and Public Purse Strings: Have Portraits of Budgeting Missed Something?
本文探讨法院是否在预算决策中扮演角色，以监狱改革为例，说明法院判决如何影响州政府矫正支出，挑战传统预算理论中忽视司法部门的观点。
Do judges make budget decisions? At one time the question would have seemed preposterous. No formal constitutional role exists for the courts in the budget process, nor do various portraits of budgeting include a place for the judicial branch. Yet, few would argue that disputes have come before the courts in which resolution has required forms of budgetary action. Consider two easily recognizable illustrations: The federal courts have been particularly active in the area of prison reform-especially the issue of prison overcrowding. Arkansas was the first state to have its corrections system judged to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment beginning with Holt v. Sarver in 1969. Since then 35 states have experienced similar litigation against their prison systems. Research has indicated that state spending for corrections has been affected by court decisions; capital expenditures have tended to increase in the years immediately following a court judgment, and corrections spending as a percentage of the total state budget has increased after a court order. ' This form of court involvement-usually referred to