In his book, Gerald Rosenberg questions the validity of the commonly accepted axiom that the Supreme Court of the United States is able to effect widespread progressive social change.
In 2003 the American Political Science Association gave The Hollow Hope the Wadsworth Award (for a publication ten years or older that has made a lasting contribution).
The First Constraint is that the nature of constitutional rights precludes the Court from hearing or effectively acting on many significant social reform claims and lessens the chances of popular mobilization.
This Constraint can be overcome if there exists sufficient precedent for change based on the Judiciary's interpretation of the Constitution.
The Second Constraint is that the Court does not have sufficient independence from the legislative and executive branches to affect significant social reform.
The Third Constraint is that the Court does not have the power to develop necessary policy and implement decisions that could affect significant reform.
In Part 3 on marriage equality Rosenberg finds that the Supreme Court followed public opinion and elite support.
Some critics argue that the empirical data that Rosenberg presents is not fine-grained enough to identify subtle yet important changes.
Some critics claim that the Court is most effective when it engages in dialogue with other political actors such as when it interprets legislation, action that The Hollow Hope doesn't address.