The social, economic, political, and legal elites of small jurisdictions exhibit greater homogeneity in social composition and political values than more urban jurisdictions, and critical participants in the legal process spring from this relatively homogeneous local elite and maintain closer ties to it than do their more diverse urban elite counterparts. The legal culture of rural jurisdictions displays less congruence with the norms and values of national and State legal policymakers and responds less willingly and frequently to outsiders' efforts to shape its content and practice, so that rural jurisdictions are more isolated and autonomous. The task environment in rural areas exerts more effective control over key participants in the legal process due to a combination of familiarity, higher visibility of their actions, and the existence of more and potent channels for sanctioning those who violate local establishment norms. Courtroom participants in rural areas lack the motivation and resources to challenge the basic procedures and institutions of the status quo. Further, the work groups that dispose of cases consist of persons who know one another personally and interact with each other daily. In rural areas, the cases and defendants entering the legal process must undergo more stringent screening mechanisms and procedures that prevent more cases from entering the system than in urban areas. Finally, civil and criminal cases that formally enter the system more often receive a disposition using informal mechanisms than is the case in urban areas. Implications of findings for the use of discretion and support of the status quo in rural areas are considered, and 147 notes are listed. (Author summary modified)