Should we even consider foreign law in making our own?

Justices Scalia and Thomas have argued that the the Supreme Court should not even refer to foreign law in justifying and explaining its decisions (except perhaps in interpreting treaties), because it would violate the original intent of the Framers. Scalia has even called invoking foreign precedent a “dangerous practice.”

The refusal to even consider the views of foreign courts has always struck me as nonsensical. An argument’s persuasiveness is measured by its persuasiveness. If an argument based on foreign law is persuasive, why forbid its consideration except from some misbegotten xenophobia?

Paul Finkelman, in “Foreign Law and American Constitutional Interpretation: A Long and Venerable Tradition,” refutes Scalia and Thomas for three principal reasons summarized in the introduction to his article. First, “[i]f the Court is going to rely on history, then surely historians must push the Court to offer the best history it can. It serves no good purpose when a justice claims adherence to history and then ignores vast amounts of historical evidence that do not fit with his preferred outcome.” Second, “[t]he history of the Court in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries demonstrates that the Court often used foreign law to help it decide cases that did not involve treaties. . . . Indeed, such use of foreign law might constitute a jurisprudential tool equivalent to stare decisis-it has been legitimized because it has been used for so long and so often by so many different justices.” Finally, “early in our history the Court often used foreign law to suppress liberties. Given this fact, it would be jurisprudential hypocrisy for the Court to turn against the use of foreign law now, when it might be used to protect or enhance liberty and fundamental rights.”

Foreign law, the Federalist Society’s view that the U.S. is better than the rest of the world, and censhorship

I now have a bit better idea of where the opposition to citation to foreign law (discussed in my last two posts) comes from.  It’s the belief that the U.S. is so exceptional there’s no point in looking to the “socialist constitutional courts of Europe.”  That’s what Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern and co-founder of the Federalist Society writes in the September 20 New York Times:

Those of us concerned about citation of foreign law — your article quotes me as one of them — believe in something called American exceptionalism, which holds that the United States is a beacon of liberty, democracy and equality of opportunity to the rest of the world. We think that it is a good thing that constitutional liberties like freedom of speech and of the press are protected more vigorously in the United States than in any foreign country. . . .

The country that saved Europe from tyranny and destruction in the 20th century and that is now saving it again from the threat of terrorist extremism and Russian tyranny needs no lessons from the socialist constitutional courts of Europe on what liberty consists of.

I think that considering the U.S. so exceptional it has no need to even consider the views of foreign courts xenophobic is, after all, not off base.  The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Marshall, himself stated that the opinions of British courts “are entitled to that respect which is due to the opinions of wise men who have maturely studied the subject they decide.”

Merely dismissing the decisions Western European countries have reached on profound legal and moral issues (including the execution of juveniles) as the decisions of “socialists” unworthy of even being considered by us “exceptional Americans” is not argument — it’s name calling and egocentricity.  I don’t see what the difference is between law review articles, British courts, or any other source that might be considered the opinion of  wise people who have maturely studied the subject they are opining on.  Foreign court decisions may be politicized, but of course U.S. court decisions, laws, and regulations are exceedingly political too: it’s all politics, whether in the foreign courts, the law reviews, or the U.S. Supreme Court.  By that I don’t mean to be a cynic or a hard core Legal Realist — rather, I mean it’s all argument.  If one is persuaded that the fact the U.S. was the only western industrialized nation that permitted the execution of juveniles made doing so “cruel and unusual,” then why should one not be permitted to consider that fact?  Justice O’Connor explained why she wasn’t convinced by that fact, but she explained why with counter-argument, not by suggesting the argument was illegitimate.

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts all are or have been members of the Federalist Society, of which Professor Calabresi (a former student of Scalia) was a co-founder.  I presume, therefore, that Calabresi speaks for them when he states that the U.S. is just too exceptional (and other countries too “socialist”) to even allow the courts to look at other countries’ laws in determining what U.S. law is or should be.

It is their views I consider un-American.  Their views suggest the courts should be censored.  It is one thing, as I’ve written, to not be persuaded by the views of other countries.  It is censorship, however, to suggest judges cannot even consider those views.  Who better represents the source of American Jurisprudence than John Marshall?  Are no jurists from other countries wise men who have maturely studied the subjects they decide?  And if we forbid reference to foreign law, why not forbid reference to law review articles, which, after all, generally advance the idiosyncratic views of their authors and rarely have any influence whatsoever on an actual lawmaking?

The sooner we get over “American Exceptionalism” and realize we learn more and make better decisions the more we consider the opinions of other wise men who have studied the same subjects we are studying, the sooner we’ll be better off.

But one more word on the Federalist Society.  If you pay attention, its members spout an unerring common line on issues they’ve identified as important.  They sometimes remind me in their methods of organization of Bolsheviks, who went out into the world with their marching orders to spread the Soviet Communist Party’s word.  Professor Calabresi in his letter to September 20th’s Times makes clear the Federalist Society leadership’s view on whether U.S. Courts should even be allowed to refer to foreign law.  Is it any wonder that in the Times article provoking Calabresi’s letter quoted Scalia, Roberts, and Alito in ways entirely consistent with Calabresi’s and the Federalist Society’s views?

What’s so wrong about looking to foreign law?

An Australian correspondent writes, in response to my post yesterday

What’s surprising to me as an Australian is that there is any controversy at all. There’s a huge difference between looking at various sources for examples of reasoning and acknowledging established local precedent as representing the law. From 1st year our students are taught the difference between persuasive and binding authority. Isn’t it healthier to be transparent about the reasoning process rather than pretending that judges aren’t sometimes influenced by personal ideology or politics or God forbid, high level judicial reasoning from othe jurisdictions with a common legal heritage?

He also reminds me of a law review article written here in the States over ten years ago that, on the same grounds, questions the basis for any objection to using foreign law for guidance in making U.S. law.  In “All the World’s a Courtroom, Judging in the New Millennium,” 26 Hofstra L. Rev. 273 (Winter 1997), Shirley S. Abrahamson and Michael J. Fischer opened with the description of an oral argument in a case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court:

In the . . . case, the defendant, a one-time farmer who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, struck and injured the head nurse in a health care center where he was confined. The court was asked to resolve one issue: Should the farmer be judged by the traditional tort standard of the reasonable person, or given that he was not capable of either controlling or appreciating his conduct, should he be absolved from civil liability altogether? 

In most states, including Wisconsin, the courts ha[d previously] concluded that a mentally disabled person must be held to the same objective standard of care as someone without such a disability. Thus the mentally disabled are generally held liable for their acts under the reasonable person standard.

American legal scholars have sharply criticized this traditional American rule. They point out that applying the reasonable person rule to people with mental conditions, in effect, imposes liability without fault, even though the law of negligence is ordinarily grounded in fault, and even though liability is incompatible with modern views and treatment of the mentally ill. 

Counsel for the farmer urged the Wisconsin Supreme Court to adopt a rule that persons should be held liable only when they know what they are doing.  And like most lawyers urging a court to adopt a new rule, counsel for the farmer sought to reassure the court of the wisdom of change by pointing to law from other jurisdictions, specifically Florida  and Canada, which seemed to buttress her point. If the new rule works there, her reasoning went, then surely it could work in Wisconsin.

Florida, the Canadian case was an entirely different matter altogether. “Petitioner is not aware,” the brief noted archly, “if Canadian case law has precedential value in the United States.” 

Counsel, of course, knew quite well that it does not. But by the same token, neither does Florida law have precedential value in Wisconsin. Why then did the nurse’s counsel single out Canada? Probably because the law of foreign countries is treated today with the suspicion that may have once marked some state courts’ approach toward the law of their sister states.

Today our state courts accept the logic behind Justice Cardozo’s famous remark, in a case involving New York and Massachusetts law. New York is “not so provincial,” Cardozo wrote, “as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home.” But while state courts routinely look to the decisions of their sister jurisdictions for the insights and persuasive value they potentially possess, the nurse’s counsel obviously 

viewed looking across our national borders as an “inherently suspect activity.” 

I was perplexed. Why did the farmer’s counsel’s citation of Canadian law signal desperation and trigger derision? Why, I wondered, should case law from Canada–an English-based, commonlaw jurisdiction geographically closer to Wisconsin than Florida–not be considered persuasive?

Professor Johns and I ask the same question, but now of several members of our country’s Supreme Court, including its Chief Justice.  As far as I can tell, there’s no good reason other than a pandering to the jingoism running strong through our current politics.  One correspondent has taken strong exception to me in essence calling Chief Justice Roberts a xenophobe, and I don’t think he personally is.  Nevertheless, his political support depends on pandering to xenophobia.  I can think of no other reason to close off consideration of arguments and reasoning that may be helpful to resolution of difficult legal questions.

Foreign law and legal argument

I wrote a post over two years ago on the point, but the legitimacy of U.S. courts referring to foreign law is an issue again today because the New York Times published a front page article discussing the waning influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on the court decisions of other nations.  One reason, according to the article, is the steady outcry from some quarters against any reference to foreign law in the U.S. courts. 

I find this outcry absurd and positively contrary to the tradition of Anglo-American law.  The common law system, unique to the Anglo-American world, is one that builds law case by case, recognizing that to achieve justice the unique facts of each case require consideration of the arguments of the parties directly affected by those facts.

The key to my point is that the courts hear arguments.  They consider prior precedents, the views of experts, and even the rantings of political idealogues.  There’s nothing wrong with doing so.  There should be no limit on what courts can refer to and rely on; rather, faced with deficient evidence or authority, the answer is correct evidence or authority.  Thus, as I explained two years ago, when a judge relies on the above-referenced political idealogue’s screed about the purported litigation explosion in reaching her decision, the answer isn’t to forbid her from doing so.  The answer is for lawyers and judges to point out that the facts don’t support her argument, that in fact 86% of trial judges surveyed consider frivolous litigation anything from “no problem” to a “small problem,” while only 2% consider it a “big problem.”

Thus, when Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case holding that executing juveniles is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it was perfectly legitimate of him to point out in support of his conclusion that ”evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” could be measured in part by the fact that no other Western industrialized country executes juveniles.  One may  disagree that U.S. standards are identical to those in other countries.  Justice O’Connor did so in that decision, arguing that “too few states had recently enacted such laws to convince her that the country generally had ‘set its face’ against the juvenile death penalty.”

The disagreement between Kennedy and O’Connor is the kind of disagreement courts resolve every day, but to not merely disagree with Kennedy but seek to entirely cut off reference to any source for one’s legal arguments is contrary to any notion of law I understand.  I expect it from (influential) right-wing wackos who think judges should be impeached for even considering foreign law in reaching their decisions.  I don’tf from our most recently appointed and confirmed Supreme Court Justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito:

At their confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and JusticeSamuel A. Alito Jr. indicated that they were opposed to the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases. Chief Justice Roberts noted that foreign judges were not accountable to the American people and said that allowing the use of foreign precedent expanded judicial discretion.

“Foreign law, you can find anything you want,” Chief Justice Roberts said. “Looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends.”

You can just as easily find “anything you want” in virtually any source courts regularly cite.  As I stated above, the answer to bad argument is good argument, not censorship.  There is nothing special about foreign court decisions except, it seems, an ever-growing U.S. fear of everything “foreign.”