This Article seeks to examine judicial opposition to New York’s 2020 criminal justice reforms in the context of existing scholarship on judicial organizational culture to understand why judicial obstruction occurs and how it can be addressed. New York’s 2020 criminal legal reforms sought to reduce pretrial detention and to provide greater access to discovery for the defense by curtailing judicial discretion to set bail and judicial power to excuse prosecutorial discovery delays. But judges opposed the law both surreptitiously and openly through defiant opinions, administrative adjustments, and routine court actions that undercut the reforms’ intended effects. Scholars such as Malcolm Feeley, Brian Ostrom, and Roger Hanson have written about how the informal organizational culture of a court system can be an impediment to reforms. Their analysis applies to New York’s 2020 reforms and provides insight into why this specific resistance occurred and how it can be addressed. The judiciary was included in planning and discussing the 2020 reforms and the reforms sought to remove judicial discretion in the matters of bail and discovery. Yet when it came time to implement the change, judges used other powers to avoid releasing individuals and to avoid sanctioning prosecutors. This is at least partially due to New York’s judicial appointment scheme which makes the judiciary sensitive to structural narratives concerning public safety and court leniency. Although these reforms were democratic and popular, judges were not sufficiently incentivized to properly implement the changes. If reforms are to succeed, the popular and political will to pass the reforms must extend beyond the passage of the law and must also create mechanisms to scrutinize, guide, and support the judiciary’s implementation of the law.

本文旨在在现有司法组织文化学术背景下审视司法部门对纽约 2020 年刑事司法改革的反对意见，以了解司法阻碍发生的原因以及如何解决。纽约 2020 年的刑事法律改革旨在减少审前拘留，并通过减少司法自由裁量权来设定保释金和司法权力来为检察机关的证据开示延误开脱，从而为辩方提供更多的证据开示机会。但法官们通过挑衅意见、行政调整和削弱改革预期效果的例行法庭行动，暗中和公开地反对这项法律。Malcolm Feeley、Brian Ostrom 和 Roger Hanson 等学者撰写了关于法院系统的非正式组织文化如何成为改革障碍的文章。他们的分析适用于纽约 2020 年的改革，并提供了对这种特定阻力发生的原因以及如何解决的见解。司法部门参与了 2020 年改革的规划和讨论，改革旨在消除司法在保释和发现问题上的自由裁量权。然而，当实施变革时，法官使用其他权力来避免释放个人并避免制裁检察官。这至少部分是由于纽约的司法任命计划使司法部门对有关公共安全和法院宽大处理的结构性叙述敏感。尽管这些改革是民主和受欢迎的，但法官没有足够的动力来正确实施这些改革。如果改革要成功，