David Souter gives a lesson in judging and the failures of Originalism.

Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter recently gave the commencement address at Harvard. In doing so, he set forth clearly and in ways anyone can understand why it is ridiculous to suggest that interpretation of the Constitution merely requires a judge to engage in a “straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.” He makes clear that, in his words, such a simplistic view “has only a tenuous connection to reality.” In doing so, he answers “criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties.”

The entire speech is worth reading for anyone interested in a high-level lesson in constitutional analysis given in clear, straightforward prose. I will try here to touch on a few of its highlights.

First, Souter points out that many of the Constitution’ guarantees are phrased in such open-ended language that they necessarily will require a large degree of interpretive work to determine their application to new facts in new times: ‘The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches.” He contrasts these provisions to provisions that provide bright lines that make decision easy — provisions such as the requirement that Senators be 30 years old.

But, as he makes clear, pointing out that determining, for example, whether a given governmental action satisfies the requirement of “due process” “hardly scratches the surface” of constitutional judging. First, provisions may be clear and yet any consideration of their real implications makes obvious that they cannot be applied literally. Second, as I’ve pointed out before (in discussing why “empathy” plays a far greater part in judging than implied those who would suggest empathy is merely soft-heartedness), determining which facts are more or less significant makes all the difference in the world of a judge:

The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere combination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them.

To make these points, Souter uses two examples. The first was the Pentagon Papers case, in which the “New York Times and the Washington Post had each obtained copies of classified documents prepared and compiled by government officials responsible for conducting the Vietnam War. The newspapers intended to publish some of those documents, and the government sought a court order forbidding the publication.” While the Court ruled that the newspapers had the right under the First Amendment to publish the Pentagon Papers, it did not do so on the simple basis that the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (emphasis added.) Instead, the Court adopted the interpretation advanced by Irwin Griswold, who responded to the suggestion by Justice Black that the case was a simple one of applying the rule that “no law” means “no law” with the argument that it was not so simple:

Now Mr. Justice, your construction of that is well-known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.

Thus, the [C]ourt’s majority decided only that the government had not met a high burden of showing facts that could justify a prior restraint, and particular members of the court spoke of examples that might have turned the case around, to go the other way. Threatened publication of something like the D-Day invasion plans could have been enjoined; Justice Brennan mentioned a publication that would risk a nuclear holocaust in peacetime.”

How can it be that “no law” does not mean “no law”? Isn’t that kind of “interpretation” exactly the kind of thing that gives judges a bad name? As Souter makes clear, it is nothing of the sort; it’s the reason we consider judging an activity requiring the utmost in wisdom, intelligence, and experience. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press cannot possibly be absolute because the Constitution provides for a plethora of other individual rights and governmental obligations, no one of which is entirely consistent with the other. As the examples above illustrate, we also have to account for the constitutional authority of the President to provide for national security . As anyone who has considered matters of individual liberty at any depth know, individual liberty is often necessarily at odds with equality. Yet the Constitution guarantees both individual liberty and equality. As Souter explains, an interpretation based on merely believing “no law” in the First Amendment means “no law”

fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.

Souter’s second example is The Supreme Court’s decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools imposed violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. As Souter explains, “Brown ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites.”

Souter, significantly, thinks that best explanation for the differences in the results between Plessy and Brown is an explanation that is forbidden to those who would believe the Constitution means now what it did in 1789 and must always mean what it meant in 1789: “the difference between the cases is the dates they were decided.”

How can this be so? It is because the significance of facts differ from judge to judge, and, of course, the significance of facts differs over time. What seemed equal treatment of the races in 1896 — when the contrast was to the recent legality of slavery — no longer seemed equal in 1954, and it would be folly to suggest otherwise:

[T]he generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery to make it look unexceptional by contrast. As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see. That meaning is not captured by descriptions of physically identical schools or physically identical railroad cars. The meaning of facts arises elsewhere, and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own. Meaning comes from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page. And when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent inferiority on the part of the minority race. The judges who understood the meaning that was apparent in 1954 would have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution if they had not held the segregation mandate unconstitutional.

As Souter so succinctly puts the matter: “So much for the assumption that facts just lie there waiting for an objective judge to view them.” And so much for the contention by John Roberts that judging is merely a matter of “calling balls and strikes.” As Souter says, such a simplistic view of what judges do “fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do.” “Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.”

Most fundamentally, Souter sees the contrast between his view of the Constitution and the view of those who would have it that judging his way means that he is making it up along the way to evade the plain language of the law as the contrast between those who would impose certainty in a world where there is no certainty. Most importantly, Souter believes that, in the face of uncertainty, we fulfill our national aspirations best by applying reason and judgment to the application of the principles that our nation was established to uphold:

Where I suspect [I] differ most fundamentally[from the those who would apply a simple, literal meaning to constitutional language] is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.

That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Nominees, Elena Kagan, and the mythical Borking of Robert Bork

During his confirmation hearings, prospective Chief Justice Roberts was questioned intensely about his respect for precedent, particularly in connection with Roe v. Wade. In keeping with the image he plainly intended to project as a true conservative, a non-activist who respects existing institutions, Roberts emphasized his respect for precedent. As I have previously written, Roberts’ purported respect for precedent didn’t prevent him recently from voting for and writing a concurring opinion in support of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, a decision that overturned 100 years of precedent supporting congressional restrictions on corporate campaign contributions.

I bring this up because of how refreshing I find Elena Kagan’s views on the confirmation process. Ever since the rejection of Robert Bork’s nomination by Ronald Reagan, right wingers have defined the verb “to bork” to refer “to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan’s nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork.” As a result, nominees since Bork have been careful to the point of absurdity to avoid revealing their views on their judicial philosophy or on particular judicial precedent.

But can anyone seriously believe that John Roberts would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade despite insisting, in connection with questions about it, on his respect for precedent? In advance of the Court’s decision in Citizen’s United, Jeffery Rosen wrote in the New York Times that Roberts could “support a narrow, restrained campaign finance decision that Republicans and Democrats can embrace, or he can hand down a broad, activist decision that turns our political system upside down.” Rosen expected the former because “when . . . Roberts became chief justice of the United States, he said that he hoped to emulate the modesty and unanimity of his greatest predecessor, John Marshall.”

We now know Roberts was lying.

It is worth keeping in mind, therefore, that  when he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork

[P]romised to keep an open mind on the issue of abortion and the right to privacy. Liberal and moderate Democratic and Republican senators did not believe him, and they were right not to. Bork, after he resigned from the federal bench, admitted that he believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and all but explicitly said that had he been on the Supreme Court he would have provided the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Sheldon Goldman, Judicial Confirmation Wars: Ideology and the Battle for the Federal Courts, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 871 (2004-2005), citing Robert H. Bork, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges at 71 (2003).

It’s worth noting Bork’s precise language in Coercing Virtue regarding Roe v. Wade and a later decision upholding it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

It is mind-boggling that citizens were admonished that accept Roe because they”must respect the “rule of law.” Both Roe and Casey are, in fact, crass violations of the rule of law; they are not rooted in any conceivable interpretation of the Constitution, and have nothing to do with “constitutional terms.”

This from the guy who said, in sworn testimony during his confirmation hearings, that he had an “open mind” about the constitutional basis for a right to privacy.

Why was Robert Bork rejected as a nominee to the Supreme Court? It was because his judicial philosophy was so out of tune with what the country expected of a Supreme Court judge in 1987 that the Senate deemed him unacceptable. We could not accept as a Supreme Court judge someone who at the time it mattered — when Congress was considering the legislation — opposed the Civil Rights Acts. We could not accept someone who once wrote passionately that the First Amendment protection of free speech did not extend to art and literature. As reported in 1987:

In 1963 and 1964, as a 36-year-old law professor, Mr. Bork wrote impassioned attacks on legislation to desegregate lunch counters and other public accommodations. He argued that the bill, by invading the liberty of proprietors to turn away blacks, was based on ”a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.” Not until 1973, when seeking Senate confirmation as Solicitor General, did he publicly renounce this view, stated with such unsurpassed surliness.

Even in his latest appearance he declined to revise his pinched view of civil rights. He has criticized some of the Supreme Court’s landmark civil rights decisions for reasons that vary from case to case. The bottom line, however, is almost always the same – unfavorable to minorities.

Free Speech. Repeatedly over the years, Judge Bork has taken a narrow view of the rights of expression. He declared that only the ”core” value of political speech was immune from government restraint. Not until 1984 did he allow as how art and literature might be protected, and then only because they sometimes relate to politics. His conversion, late, is also limited.

Even this limited liberty, in his view, remains utterly at the mercy of the majority when speech becomes advocacy of illegal action. The Court and the mainstream of public opinion have long tolerated strident dissent, reserving punishment for incitement to imminent lawless action. Judge Bork rejects this tradition. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania extracted from him a ”commitment” to apply settled law rather than his own view. But even such assurances failed to persuade the Judiciary Committee’s ablest questioner, who has decided to oppose the nomination.

So let’s get over this nonsense that Robert Bork was somehow wronged — Robert Bork was denied appointment to the Supreme Court because his judicial views were too far out of step with what the U.S. had come to expect from its Constitution in connection with protection against racial prejudice and restrictions on expression.

What does this have to do with Elena Kagan? Kagan believes that the Senate should explore a nominee’s views, that the confirmation hearings should not continue to be what they have been since the days of Robert Bork — silly, ritual dances that permit the likes of John Roberts to evade completely straight answers to questions that are of central importance to the operation of the Court. As Kagan has written:

The Bork hearings presented to the public a serious discussion of the meaning of the Constitution, the role of the Court, and the views of the nominee; that discussion at once educated the public and allowed it to determine whether the nominee would move the Court in the proper direction. Subsequent hearings have presented to the public a vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis. Such hearings serve little educative function, except perhaps to reinforce lessons of cynicism that citizens often glean from government. Neither can such hearings contribute toward an evaluation of the Court and a determination whether the nominee would make it a better or worse institution. A process so empty may seem ever so tidy–muted, polite, and restrained–but all that good order comes at great cost. And what is worse even than the hearings themselves is a necessary condition of them: the evident belief of many senators that serious substantive inquiry of nominees is usually not only inessential, but illegitimate–that their insistent questioning of Judge Bork was justified, if at all, by his overt “radicalism” and that a similar insistence with respect to other nominees, not so obviously “outside the mainstream,” would be improper. This belief is not so often or so clearly stated; but it underlies all that the Judiciary Committee now does with respect to Supreme Court nominations. It is one reason that senators accede to the evasive answers they now have received from five consecutive nominees. It is one reason that senators emphasize, even in posing questions, that they are asking the nominee only about philosophy and not at all about cases–in effect, inviting the nominee to spout legal theory, but to spurn any demonstration of what that theory might mean in practice. It is one reason that senators often act as if their inquiry were a presumption-as if they, mere politicians, have no right to ask a real lawyer (let alone a real judge) about what the law should look like and how it should work. What has happened is that the Senate . . . has let slip the fundamental lesson of the Bork hearings: the essential rightness–the legitimacy and the desirability–of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.

Elena Kagan, Confirmation Messes, Old and New, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 619, 941-942 (footnotes omitted), reviewing Stephen L. Carter, The Confirmation Mess (1994).

So Kagan doesn’t have much of a paper trail. David Brooks therefore writes that she “is a person whose career has dovetailed with the incentives presented by the confirmation system, a system that punishes creativity and rewards caginess.” Consequently, he finds her “kind of disturbing.” It’s almost funny. Brooks wrote when John Roberts was nominated that

I love thee with the depth and breadth and height my soul can reach. I love thee freely, as men strive for right. I love thee because this is the way government is supposed to work. President Bush consulted widely, moved beyond the tokenism of identity politics and selected a nominee based on substance, brains, careful judgment and good character.

What inspired this poetic passion from Brooks? According to Brooks, Roberts “is principled and shares the conservative preference for judicial restraint.” And “[a]nybody who is brilliant during Supreme Court grillings, as Roberts is, will be impressive at confirmation hearings.” Finally, Roberts “has shown that character and substance matter most.”

So Kagan — who has put on the record her belief that Supreme Court nominees should address the issues that will come before the Court — is “disturbing,” but Roberts, who lied about being a conservative consensus builder with a deep respect for precedent has “substance, brains, careful judgment and good character.”

Yeah, right. Here’s my suggestion to all those who think Kagan’s a “blank slate” — why don’t you withhold judgment until the confirmation hearings. Let her answer questions, questions she’s on record stating she thinks are legitimate and should be answered. It’s more than we got from John Roberts.

Chief Justice John Roberts on legal writing

Bryan Garner is the most commercially successful of legal writing teachers. On his company’s web sites, he has numerous short videos with judges from around the country as well as onger interviews with the Supreme Court Justices. Here is his interview with Chief Justice John Roberts on, among other things, the centrality of writing in legal practice:

Justice Roberts: I am the best qualified to do what I do.

From the New York Times:

For the first time in its history, every member of the United States Supreme Court is a former federal appeals court judge. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in a lively and surprising talk a couple of weeks ago, said that development may be a good thing.

Over the life of the Supreme Court, its members were quite likely to be former governors, legislators, cabinet members, law professors and practicing lawyers. That mix of backgrounds and expertise might strike some as valuable, but the chief justice suggested that it tended to inject policy and politics into an area properly reserved for the law.

As late as 1972, when Chief Justice Roberts’s predecessor, William H. Rehnquist, joined the court as an associate justice, former federal judges were in the minority.

As a consequence, Chief Justice Roberts said, “the practice of constitutional law – how constitutional law was made – was more fluid and wide ranging than it is today, more in the realm of political science.”

I’m not sure I could disagree more strongly. As I’ve emphasized in recent weeks (here, here, and here), I think judging is first and foremost doing justice. A variety of viewpoints (including those of “former governors, legislators, cabinet members, law professors and practicing lawyers”) is far more likely to lead to justice as it is defined in the real world than the abstractions of appellate judges.

In fact, I think one of the principal weaknesses of the Supreme Court as it is presently constituted is the lack of experience the Justices have with the real world — even with the real world in a legal sense. The judges were not trial lawyers for regular everyday people; they were not trial judges. All appellate judges ever see are written documents (the arguments of lawyers, the documentary and physical evidence submitted in trial courts, and transcripts of testimony in lower courts). They don’t see witnesses. The only people they see in their professional lives outside their own chambers are lawyers during oral argument. Very few cases, in fact, get appealed. The vast majority have too little at stake to make any appeal financially practicable.

In short, a Court consisting only of people whose principal occupations have been as corporate lawyers, government lawyers, and appellate judges is a Court about as divorced from real life as possible. Is that really the ideal Court? Of course, Justice Roberts would think so. I’ve always believed that the vast majority of people who succeed in any given system believe that system is a true meritocracy. If Justice Roberts was an appellate judge, and if the Supreme Court consists of only appellate judges, is it really any surprise he thinks appellate judges make the best Supreme Court Justices?

The Chief Justice wishes he were Dashiell Hammet.

Coincidentally, yesterday in class a student asked me how legal writers use narrative to persuade audiences.  I gave the driest answer possible: it’s telling the facts in a way that swings the audience your way.  There’s no such thing as an objective story.  If you read a judicial opinion, as soon as the judge writes the facts it becomes apparent from the way the story is shaped which way he’s ruled.  But yesterday the Chief Justice John Roberts engaged in storytelling I don’t think any lawyer other than the Chief Justice could get away with.  Seven of the justices of the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reversal of the conviction of a man for possession of a controlled substance.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had held that there was on the grounds that had not been “probable cause” to arrest the man.  In his dissent from the decision, Roberts wrote as follows:

North Philly, May 4, 2001. Officer Sean Devlin, Narcotics Strike Force, was working the morning shift. Undercover surveillance. The neighborhood? Tough as a three-dollar steak. Devlin knew. Five years on the beat, nine months with the Strike Force. He’d made fifteen, twenty drug busts in the neighborhood.  Devlin spotted him: a lone man in the corner. Another approached. Quick exchange of words. Cash handed over; small objects handed back. Each man then quickly on his own way. Devlin knew the guy wasn’t buying bus tokens. He radioed a description and Officer Stein picked up the buyer. Sure enough: three bags of crack [cocaine] in the guy’s pocket. Head downtown and book him. Just another day at the office.

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.”