DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Activism and Its Critics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Activism and Its Critics University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2007 Judicial Activism and Its Critics Kermit Roosevelt III University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Richard Garnett University of Notre Dame Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Repository Citation Roosevelt, Kermit III and Garnett, Richard, "Judicial Activism and Its Critics" (2007). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 932. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/932 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEBATE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND ITS CRITICS “Judicial activism,” writes Professor Kermit Roosevelt, of Penn, has been employed as an “excessive and unhelpful” charge—one “essen- tially empty of content.” As a substitute, Roosevelt reviews here the framework for analysis of Supreme Court opinions that receives fuller treatment in his recent book, The Myth of Judicial Activism. Professor Richard W. Garnett, of Notre Dame, is willing to go along with “much, though not all, of” Roosevelt’s position. Ultimately, Garnett suggests “that ‘judicial activism’ might be salvaged, and used as a way of identi- fying and criticizing decisions . that fail to demonstrate th[e] virtue” of constitutional “humility.” OPENING STATEMENT Against “Activism” Kermit Roosevelt III† In this debate I will review the argument from my just-published book, The Myth of Judicial Activism. The book attempts to achieve two things: first, to counteract what I felt was excessive and unhelpful po- litical use of rhetoric about “judicial activism,” and second, to offer a more useful perspective from which to judge Supreme Court deci- sions, for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. The negative argument of the book is that “judicial activism,” as the phrase is typically used, is essentially empty of content; it is simply an inflammatory way of registering disapproval of a decision. It is supposed to indicate that a judge has decided a case based on per- sonal policy preferences rather than law. But this is not a fair descrip- tion of controversial constitutional cases for two reasons. First, I’m pretty confident that almost no judge has ever believed that he or she † Associate Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School. (112) 113 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 155: 112 PENNumbra was deciding a case this way, and I’m certain that they don’t do so with anything like the frequency critics charge. Second, and more important, most of the difficult and controver- sial constitutional cases don’t have clear right answers. The charge of activism relies on the idea that there is a clear answer that judges are ignoring (and therefore that they must be motivated by something other than a good faith desire to apply the Constitution). But this so- called “plain meaning” turns out to be indeterminate in many cases: the First Amendment doesn’t tell us what counts as speech (art? dance? nude dance?) or what’s an abridgment (firing from a govern- ment job?). Likewise, the Equal Protection Clause doesn’t tell us which kinds of discrimination are forbidden and which are permitted. Because there is no plain meaning that decides the difficult cases, I argue, courts must create doctrine that takes the judges from the gen- eralities of the Constitution to decisions in specific cases. Doctrine is what we should be evaluating, and the key issue in evaluating doctrine tends to be whether the Court is showing an appropriate level of def- erence to the government actor whose conduct it is reviewing. Before turning to a discussion about appropriate deference, a quick digression on doctrine and meaning is appropriate. Original- ism, in one variant—which I call “application originalism”—suggests that doctrine is unnecessary. Instead, we can use the expectations of the drafters or ratifiers as to how general constitutional language would apply in specific cases. So, for instance, rather than crafting a doctrinal rule to reflect how deferential or suspicious courts should be with respect to racial discrimination by states, we can ask whether the ratifiers would have believed that a particular act of discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause. This approach to constitutional interpretation is frequently mistaken because we would better serve both the purpose of many general constitutional provisions and the understanding of their ratifiers if we read them to announce general standards that are to be applied in light of contemporary circum- stances. So if, for example, we take the basic meaning of the Equal Protection Clause to be a ban on unjustified discrimination, the rele- vant constitutional question is not whether racially segregated state public schooling appeared unjustified in 1868, but rather whether it appears unjustified now. Because history can’t answer that question, I argue, we do in fact need doctrine. So this brings up the question of how to decide whether the doc- trine that the Court has crafted is sensible. The best way to do this, I suggest, is to think in terms of deference. Deference strikes me as the central concept for two reasons. First, a surprising amount of doc- trine boils down to the choice of a particular level of deference—for 2006] JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND ITS CRITICS 114 instance, that is how I read the tiers of scrutiny, which of course crop up all over the place. Second, if we are concerned about courts abus- ing their power and usurping the policymaking function of other gov- ernmental actors, a lack of appropriate deference is the basic form that this abuse and usurpation would take. Also, the deference in- quiry is manageable, whereas trying to decide whether a particular de- cision is correct or not is very hard and very technical and hence not likely to be a useful endeavor for non-lawyers. How do we decide whether the level of deference is appropriate? I think there is a fairly small set of factors that suggest when courts should defer or should not. In the book, I identify what I think are the four most important. Institutional competence goes to the respective abilities of courts versus legislatures or executive officers to decide a particular question. Because I read many important constitutional provisions to have a cost-benefit balancing component (e.g., the Equal Protection Clause in part tells states not to discriminate against some group unless the discrimination produces net benefits to society, though also in part not to do so out of hostility), which institution is better at assessing costs and benefits in a particular context will fre- quently be relevant. And, to the extent that the assessment relies on weighing competing policies, the decision should generally be left to the representative branches for reasons of democratic accountability. This is a Legal Process sort of consideration. Defects in democracy at- tempts to identify cases in which the legislative assessment will be sus- pect for structural reasons—as when benefits of a law go to in-staters and costs fall on out-of-staters. This is a John Hart Ely/process theory consideration. Lessons of history considers whether particular actors have proven themselves trustworthy or untrustworthy in particular cir- cumstances. This is where a history of discrimination against a par- ticular group would come into the equal protection analysis, for in- stance. Costs of error attempts to decide whether it is worse in a certain set of cases for the courts to err by upholding an unconstitutional act or striking down a constitutional one. This consideration will lead courts to adopt stances that produce different error distributions. If, for instance, the only constitutional question is whether a law is in the public interest, the costs of error factor will ordinarily suggest defer- ence. The harm of a mistake in a close case is small, and a legislature that makes a mistake can realize that and correct it fairly easily, whereas a mistaken judicial decision is harder to fix. But if the error is one that would impose very high costs on a small group of individuals and is unlikely to be remedied through the democratic process, the costs of error factor might suggest less deference (the “beyond a rea- 115 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 155: 112 PENNumbra sonable doubt” standard, evidently reflecting a belief that it is worse to convict the innocent than to acquit the guilty, is an example). All of this sounds reasonable, I hope. Disagreement will arise in applying the factors to particular cases. But here I try to stay reason- able by judging the Court’s decisions using a very weak criterion. In most difficult cases, there will be factors pointing in different direc- tions, and any reasonable reconciliation of the competing factors is legitimate. That is, different judges will, appropriately, have different views as to the relative significance of these factors, and they will reach different conclusions about how much deference is appropriate in particular cases. There really aren’t right answers here, so all we can ask is that the judges be sincere and, to some extent, consistent. Most decisions will turn out to be legitimate. But, I like to say: this is not a bug, it’s a feature. Most of what the Court has been doing is legiti- mate. A couple of examples will illustrate how these factors may be ap- plied to Court decisions. Heightened scrutiny (a lack of deference) for discrimination against women is supported by the lessons of his- tory factor (see, e.g., coverture).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AP Government: Due Process & Roe V. Wade
    Social Studies Virtual Learning AP Government: Due Process & Roe v. Wade April 13, 2020 AP Government Lesson: April 13, 2020 Objective: LOR 3.B Explain the extent which states are limited by the due process clause from infringing upon individual rights. Warm Up: Write down your answer the following question. There are no right or wrongs here, but this is the focus of the lesson today! What is the right to privacy? What are 3 aspects of everyday life that it includes? Lesson: Roe v. Wade As this is a required case for the test, there are some ideas that are important to remember. Please write these down in your own words so you know what they are. Term Definition Due process The 14th Amendment clause guaranteeing that no state clause shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the due process clause to provide for “selective incorporation” of amendments into the states, meaning that neither the states nor the federal government may abridge individual rights protected by the Constitution. Term Definition “Penumbra Derived from the Latin for “partial shadow.” The Supreme of privacy” Court has ruled that several amendments in the Bill of Rights cast a “penumbra” of the right to privacy, although the right to privacy itself is never explicitly named. For example, the Court has interpreted that the 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures implies a right to privacy in the home. Right to The right to be “left alone,” or to be free of government privacy scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Textualists: a Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1994 A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia Michael J. Gerhardt Repository Citation Gerhardt, Michael J., "A Tale of Two Textualists: A Critical Comparison of Justices Black and Scalia" (1994). Faculty Publications. 990. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/990 Copyright c 1994 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs ARTICLES A TALE OF TWO TEXTUALISTS: A CRITICAL COMPARISON OF JUSTICES BLACK AND SCALIA MICHAEL J. GERHARDT* The idea that Justices Hugo Black and Antonin Scalia have anything in common jurisprudentially is counterintuitive. Justice Black is associated with the progressive social and economic legislation symbolized by the New Deal and with judicial activism in protecting the poor and disen­ franchised.1 He is beloved by many liberals as a champion of individual rights, especially freedom of speech and of the press. In contrast, Justice Scalia is revered by conservatives as a true believer-combating the rising tide of liberalism, big government, and judicial activism-set on restoring traditional notions of federalism and judicial restraint.2 Any effort to liken these two Justices makes both liberals and conservatives recoil. * Professor of Law, Marshall-Wythe School of Law, The College of William and Mary. B.A. Yale University; M.Sc. London School of Economics; J.D. University of Chicago. I am grateful for the encouragement and helpful comments on earlier drafts I received from Marc Arkin, Erwin Chemerinsky, George Cochran, Neal Devins, Jill Fisch, Tracy Higgins, Michael Herz, Sandy Levinson, Chip Lupu, Tracey Maclin, John McGinnis, Peter Shane, Bill Treanor, Steve Wermiel, and Ron Wright.
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash
    MWP – 2016/04 Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict AuthorReva B. Author Siegel and Author Author European University Institute Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict Reva B. Siegel Max Weber Lecture No. 2016/04 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1830-7736 © Reva B. Siegel, 2016 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract In the decades before the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges, Americans disdained, denounced, and debated same-sex marriage. When state courts recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, opponents passed laws and state constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This fierce conflict provoked argument about the capacity of courts to defend minority rights. Critics argued that judicial judgments shutting down politics were counterproductive and provoked a backlash that exacerbated political polarization. Conversation about the backlash ranged widely from academics and advocates to judges. These “realist” accounts of judicial review depicted courts as majoritarian institutions whose authority is tied to public consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Activism"
    The Origin and Current Meanings of "JudicialActivism" Keenan D. Kmiect TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................1442 I. Early History of the Term "Judicial Activism" ..............................1444 A. In Search of the Earliest Use .....................................................1444 B. First Recorded Use: Arthur Schlesinger in Fortune M agazine .....................................................................1445 C. Early Usage of "Judicial Activism" .........................................1450 D. Early Scholarly Examination of Judicial Activism ...................1452 E. First Judicial Use of "Judicial Activism": Judge Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr ..................................................1455 F. Other Noteworthy Discussions of "Judicial Activism" in Judicial O pinions ......................................................................1459 II. Definitions of Judicial Activism ......................................................1463 A. Striking Down Arguably Constitutional Actions of O ther B ranches .........................................................................1463 B . Ignoring Precedent ....................................................................1466 1. Vertical versus Horizontal Precedent ....................................1466 2. Constitutional versus Statutory versus Common Law Precedents ..................................................................1469 C . Judicial Legislation ...................................................................1471
    [Show full text]
  • A Key Influence on the Doctrine of Actual Malice: Justice William Brennan's Judicial Philosophy at Work in Changing the Law of Seditious Libel Carlo A
    Barry University School of Law Digital Commons @ Barry Law Faculty Scholarship 2004 A Key Influence on the Doctrine of Actual Malice: Justice William Brennan's Judicial Philosophy at Work in Changing the Law of Seditious Libel Carlo A. Pedrioli Barry University Follow this and additional works at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/facultyscholarship Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Carlo A. Pedrioli, A Key Influence on the Doctrine of Actual Malice: Justice William Brennan's Judicial Philosophy at Work in Changing the Law of Seditious Libel, 9 COMM. L. & POL'Y 567 (2004) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Barry Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Barry Law. 9 COMM. L. & POL’Y 567–596 (2004) Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. A KEY INFLUENCE ON THE DOCTRINE OF ACTUAL MALICE: JUSTICE WILLIAM BRENNAN’S JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY AT WORK IN CHANGING THE LAW OF SEDITIOUS LIBEL CARLO A. PEDRIOLI* Much of the scholarship on Justice William Brennan’s landmark opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has focused on the actual malice doctrine and its implications. In light of the historic change in the law of seditious libel in the United States as a result of the case and the need for further exploration of the human factors behind the case, this article explains how Justice Brennan’s instrumentalist judicial philosophy had an important influence on changing the course of legal protection for speech critical of the government.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens United and Conservative Judicial Activism
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2012 Citizens United and Conservative Judicial Activism Geoffrey R. Stone Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Geoffrey R. Stone, "Citizens United and Conservative Judicial Activism," 2012 University of Illinois Law Review 485 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CITIZENS UNITED AND CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISMt Geoffrey R. Stone* This Article analyzes the recent trend of conservative judicial ac- tivism in the Supreme Court and searches for a principled reason to explain it. The conservative majority has struck down several laws in recent years, culminating in its invalidationof an importantprovision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. While judicial restraint and originalism are currently seen as conservative principles, neitherprin- ciple explains these decisions. The author argues that no principle can explain the results of these cases-rather,they can only be explained by the Justices' per- sonal views and policy preferences. The author compares the con- servative majority's pattern to that of the Warren Court, which largely invalidated laws only when footnote four in United States v. Carolene Products Co. would dictate that the Court should. Thus, neither unrestrainedjudicial activism nor total judicial restraint is ap- propriate. Instead, the author argues that a selective judicial activism guided by footnote four is the best approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Activism in a Violent Context: the Origin, Role, and Impact of the Colombian Constitutional Court
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 3 Issue 4 Judicial Activism in a Violent Context: The Origin, Role, and Impact of the Colombian Constitutional Court January 2004 Judicial Activism in a Violent Context: The Origin, Role, and Impact of the Colombian Constitutional Court Manuel José Cepeda-Espinosa Constitutional Court of Colombia Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Manuel José Cepeda-Espinosa, Judicial Activism in a Violent Context: The Origin, Role, and Impact of the Colombian Constitutional Court, 3 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 529 (2004), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol3/iss4/2 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Global Studies Law Review VOLUME 3 SPECIAL ISSUE 2004 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN A VIOLENT CONTEXT: THE ORIGIN, ROLE, AND IMPACT OF THE COLOMBIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT* JUSTICE MANUEL JOSÉ CEPEDA-ESPINOSA SPONSORED BY THE WHITNEY R. HARRIS INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE MAKING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ................................. 537 A. The Constitutional System of Judicial Review in the 1886 Constitution ............................................................................. 537 1. The Origins and Features of the 1886 Scheme................ 538 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of the System................. 540 3. The Prevailing Interpretative Approach and the Erosion of the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy...................
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Activism”
    THE PROPER ROLE OF “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” THE HONORABLE CLINT BOLICK* The last time I was invited to speak at the Federalist Society National Student Symposium,1 never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the next time I spoke at the Symposium would be as a Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Yet, here I am, as a judge. And once again, I am going to extol the virtues of an activist judiciary—here at the Federalist Society, of all places. How on earth could I make such a provocative, if not down- right shocking, argument? “Judicial activism” is the universal pejorative. It is one thing on which both the right and left, red and blue, agree—that judicial activism is horrible.2 But think about this for a moment: Every single person in this room is an activist. We are here because we are activists. After all, the op- posite of activism is passivity, and perish the day that any of us are accused of passivity. The devil, of course, is in the definition. I define judicial ac- tivism as any instance in which the courts strike down a law that violates individual rights or transgresses the constitutional boundaries of the other branches of government. In that re- gard, the problem with judicial activism is not that there is far too much, but that there has been far too little. This is due to the explosive growth of government power at every level.3 * Associate Justice, Arizona Supreme Court. 1. Clint C. Bolick, Jump-Starting K–12 Education Reform, 40 HARV.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism, Stare Decisis and the Promotion of Judicial Restraint Thomas W
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2005 Originalism, Stare Decisis and the Promotion of Judicial Restraint Thomas W. Merrill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Merrill, Thomas W., "Originalism, Stare Decisis and the Promotion of Judicial Restraint" (2005). Constitutional Commentary. 1092. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1092 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ORIGINALISM, STARE DECISIS AND THE PROMOTION OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT Thomas W. Merrill* I. INTRODUCfiON If we consider constitutional law as a practice, it is clear that both originalism and precedent play an important role. Neither one is going to vanquish the other, at least not any time soon. We can engage in academic debate about originalism versus stare decisis, as if they were rival modes of interpretation that could operate to the exclusion of the other. But the question of practical importance is one of degree and emphasis: in cases where these two sources of authority arguably point in different directions, which one should have a greater claim to our alle­ giance? Originalism-interpreting the text in accordance with the understanding of the Framers-is arguably the more fundamen­ tal principle. Insofar as our legal system rests on legal positivism or the command theory of law-which it largely does, at least with respect to enacted law-then the Constitution must be re­ garded as the supreme command of the ultimate lawgiver, the People.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution
    FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL Judicial Activism and the frc Threat to the Constitution BE ENGAGED Policy Publication Releases: Highlights new and notable publications from Family Research Council. It's a must for anyone wanting to keep abreast of pro-family issues. click here to subscribe Help Us Get Others Engaged: Tell a friend about this publication. click here to forward f family research council rcWashington, DC Thank you for choosing this resource. Our pamphlets are Judicial Activism and the designed for grassroots activ- ists and concerned citizens—in Threat to the Constitution other words, people who want by robert p. george to make a difference in their families, in their com- munities, and in their culture. Recent history has clearly shown the influence that Judicial power can be used, and has been used, the “Values Voter” can have in the political process. for both good and ill. However, in a basically just FRC is committed to enabling and motivating indi- democratic republic, judicial power should never viduals to bring about even more positive change be exercised—even for desirable ends—lawlessly. in our nation and around the world. I invite you Judges are not legislators. The legitimacy of their to use this pamphlet as a resource for educating decisions, particularly those decisions that overturn yourself and others about some of the most press- legislative judgments, depends entirely on the truth ing issues of our day. of the judicial claim that the court was authorized by law to settle the matter. Where this claim is false, a FRC has a wide range of papers and publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to the Justices' Papers
    LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] 185 186 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] The Justices’ Privacy Interests ........................................202 Supreme Court Clerks’ Privacy Interests ...............................206 Shifting From Privacy to Public Policy ................................207 Proposals for Improvement ............................................208 “Public Papers” as Public Property ....................................208 Congress Changes Ownership Status Only; Judicial Branch Works Out Details ....................................................209 Incentives for Complete Collections and Short Embargos. .210 Archive and Library Guidelines ......................................211 Conclusion . 211 Introduction ¶1 Following the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in early 2016,2 it quickly came to the attention of legal scholars that Justice Scalia had not designated a repository for his papers before his passing.3 No law governs the preservation of federal judges’ papers produced in the course of their work as employees of the United States.4 As a result, the fate of Scalia’s papers was left in the hands of his family, who were free to do virtually anything with them. Papers of other Supreme Court Justices have been destroyed, lost, or heavily restricted. We now know that the Scalia family has chosen Harvard Law Library as the repository for the papers, but they have placed restrictions on them that will delay access to many of the papers for an indeterminate (but likely not short) period based on the lifespans of Scalia’s colleagues. This delay will frustrate scholars and other research- ers, and it will hamper further insight into the Court at a time when it appears to be undergoing an ideological shift further to the right. Justice Scalia spent twenty- nine years on the Court participating in many decisions that have shaped modern American society and jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • The ALI Reporter Fall/Winter 2014
    VOLUME 37 • NUMBER 1 FALL/WINTER 2014 The ReporterPublished By The American Law Institute DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING AND IMPROVING THE LAW Four New Projects to Begin in 2015 The work of The American Law Institute will grow significantly in 2015 with the launch of four new projects. In October, the ALI Council approved the commencement of work on three new Restatements of the Law—Conflict of Laws, Copyright, and Property—as well as a Principles of the Law project on Compliance, Enforcement, and Risk Management for Corporations, Nonprofits, and Other Organizations. The Institute will tackle the subject of conflicts for the third time, some 80 years after the original Restatement of Conflicts was published in 1934. The Restatement of the Law Third, Conflict of Laws, will eventually supersede the Restatement Second, Conflict of Laws, published in 1971 and partially revised in 1988. The Second Restatement’s “most significant relationship” analysis has been widely accepted by courts, but has also been criticized for its difficulty of administration. Like its predecessors, the new Restatement will cover choice of law, including related issues such as dépeçage and renvoi; judicial jurisdiction; and recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Reporter, Professor Kermit Roosevelt III of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, will be assisted by Associate Reporters Laura E. Little of Temple University Beasley School of Law and Clockwise from top left: Reporters Kermit Roosevelt III, Henry E. Smith, Christopher A. Whytock of the University of California, Irvine School Geoffrey P. Miller, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. of Law. continued on page 2 The President’s Letter A Giant Step for Simplicity The October Council meeting was notable for many reasons.
    [Show full text]