According to the authors, the fundamental controversy regarding hate crime had been the meaning attached to the concept. The authors’ tracked changes in judicial rhetoric in 38 appellate court opinions that examined the constitutionality of hate crimes from 1984 through 1999. The authors used both a qualitative and quantitative approach in their research. Using qualitative analysis, they concluded that the meaning of hate crime had become richer in expression than the words found in the Statutes themselves, while the “domain” of hate crime included broader ranges of behavior. Quantitative analysis revealed that over time judicial discourse had become more economical and regularized in response to constitutional challenges to hate crime laws. Overall, the authors’ primary goal was to present an alternative perspective to hate crime by making the reader think about “legal-making” as part of the broader concept of institutionalization, hoping this in turn would demonstrate how legal actors come to “fix” a meaning while developing patterns of interpretation and justifying legal rules. The article discussed the implications of these conclusions for future sociolegal research. Four figures (graphs), references, cases and statutes cited, and appendix