In controversial court cases involving civil rights, schools and housing, prison reform, and other social issues, federal district-court judges are often called upon to make some of the most difficult judicial decisions. How do these cases arise? How are they prosecuted and remedies fashioned when federally protected rights are violated? How can relations between federal judges and state and local officials be improved? This book--the first to attempt to look at such cases from the district court judge's point of view--examines some of these questions through five comparative case studies involving open housing in a Cleveland suburb, school desegregation in Detroit, mental health reform in Alabama, prison conditions in Ohio, and alleged police misconduct in Philadelphia. Cooper presents a clear overview of the remedial decree process and prefaces each of the case studies with a full chapter that sets the case in its legal, administrative, and political context. Taking a close look at the interactions between federal district court judges and state and local officials, this volume produces a model of remedial decree litigation that challenges widely-held assumptions about the role of district judges in such controversial cases.