This work is the first intensive, scholarly study of the early Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Moreover, it is the first investigation of an early American court from the perspective of broad developments within early society. As such it provides the first serious look at a judicial institution shaping the community within which it functioned and being shaped in turn by forces and developments within that society.

The book traces the evolution of the personnel, proceedings, and language of the Pennsylvania high court from its founding in May 1684 to its restructuring under the judicial reforms of 1809.

Rowe thoroughly demonstrates an important change in the court's institutional focus during the American Revolution when the court exhibited both an enhanced interest in the outcome of government prosecutions and a greater concern for the rights of individuals facing criminal charges. The growth of the court's powers are traced as are its accomplishments over time, especially after 1778.

Also demonstrated is the process by which the court challenged the executive and legislative branches for authority within the state. Accordingly, the work describes the court's move toward the exercise of judicial review prior to Marshall's landmark Marbury v. Madison (1803) ruling and the course by which the high bench came to be viewed by many as an aristocratic forum, a menace and a barrier to the growth of democracy in Pennsylvania.

Rowe examines the steps taken by popular forces in the early nineteenth century to diminish the court's impact and influence, as well as the attempts to remove or intimidate the court's judges.

The importance of this work lies in its evaluation of the court's impact on early Pennsylvanians, white and nonwhite, free and unfree, male and female, young and old, rich and poor. Also documented are the changing role of the court in politics and the evolution of the court's personnel toward greater professionalism.

Finally, this book carefully traces the mounting conflict centering on the court as its values and practices increasingly came into conflict with the democratic forces, aspirations, and developments within the state.