How should judges decide hard cases involving rights conflicts? Standard debates about this question are usually framed in jurisprudential terms. Legal positivists and critical legal theorists claim that the law “runs out” or is incomplete, requiring judges to exercise discretion, while some anti-positivists argue that the law always provides a right answer. Recently, however, some legal scholars have attempted to side-step these responses by arguing that, if (or when) there are hard cases, judges should adopt second-order decision procedures to adjudicate them. Drawing on the idea of “least cost avoidance,” familiar from tort law, a leading proposal recommends that judges apply a conflict-avoidance principle, which holds that courts should decide against the party that, ex ante, could most easily have avoided a conflict over its rights. After distinguishing various ways in which the law can be incomplete, we rehearse the case for conflict avoidance. We then argue that even in instances of legal indeterminacy or epistemic uncertainty — when the law provides no first-order reasons for selecting one outcome over another — there are several grounds for rejecting this approach to constitutional adjudication. First, despite its novelty and prima facie appeal, conflict avoidance is based on a mistaken analogy to accidents, which underestimates the epistemic and moral benefits of deciding hard cases. Second, conflict avoidance privileges private ordering over democratic decision-making, in ways that risk entrenchment of social hierarchies and trivialization of expressive or deontic rights. Third, the case for conflict avoidance fails to account for alternative second-order decision procedures and the normative justifications for them. Lastly, we caution that the use of hypothetical examples and toy cases can mislead by suggesting that indeterminacy is pervasive in the legal system. But many purportedly “hard” cases may turn out to involve reasonable disagreements, rather than more intractable forms of legal incompleteness. In those cases, judges may be able to decide based on first-order reasons. Indeed, facing the prospect of applying second-order procedures may lead judges to conclude that law and morality do, after all, provide the right answers.
The Supreme Court’s turn to “history and tradition” raises the critical question of what to do about “bad traditions.” If the customs of yore were...
In earlier work, I discussed historical understandings of the kinds of disputes that Congress can authorize nonjudicial actors to resolve and the...
This chapter discusses the repugnant income generating activities (“RIGA”) of phase I medical research, sex work, and plasma donation. Though each is...
We introduce altruism into standard models of bargaining and explore its implications for the Coase Theorem. A strict interpretation of the Coase...
This casebook provides an overview of the wide range of legal and ethical issues facing lawyers in practice. As did prior editions, the Seventh...
“In a time when disinformation is being laundered through government agencies, the responsibility to protect evidence-based care falls to courageous...
Constitutional scholars have long observed that the term “constitutional crisis” is overused. Pundits and scholars routinely use it to describe...
A distinct set of six institutions and traditions makes the country hard to subjugate to an authoritarian’s will.
Psychology and law, by their nature, are deeply entwined. Both are about human behavior – understanding it, modifying it, regulating it. Psychology’s...
Although ethical critiques of markets are longstanding, modern academic debates about the ‘moral limits of markets’ (MLM) tend to be fairly limited in...
Trump v. United States is so intensely criticized that, in some quarters, it is at risk of being included in the anti-canon. It is alleged to be...
Reconstructing Parentage is a comprehensive investigation into what makes someone a parent. Drawing on liberal-egalitarian philosophy, the book argues...
Trump v. United States’s discovery of broad immunity has rendered the presidency more imperial and unaccountable. This Article tackles four questions...
Contrary to previous research and press accounts, we find limited evidence that persons who worked the polls in the past, including the 2020 election...
The Founders were not textualists. The letter of the law mattered quite a bit. But, as William Blackstone noted, interpretation also required the...
Leaders often try to amend constitutions to remove checks on their powers. To help protect against such democratic erosion, constitutional drafters...