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.
We live in a golden age of student surveillance. Some surveillance is old school: video cameras, school resource officers, and tip lines. Old-school...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
How should judges decide hard cases involving rights conflicts? Standard debates about this question are usually framed in jurisprudential terms...
This article argues that the fact that an action will compound a prior injustice counts as a reason against doing the action. I call this reason The...
Berryessa et al. (2022) consider how prior experience as a criminal prosecutor may influence judicial behaviour, but their concerns about prior...
At first blush, the debate between Stanley Fish and Ronald Dworkin that took place over the course of the 1980s and early 90s seems to have produced...
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
In our increasingly polarized society, claims that prosecutions are politically motivated, racially motivated, or just plain arbitrary are more common...
The lawyer-client relationship is pivotal in providing access to courts. This paper presents results from a large-scale field experiment exploring how...
Across multiple national surveys sampling more than 12,000 people, we have found that a majority of Americans, more than 60 percent, consider false...
Given that no two acts, events, situations, and legal cases are identical, precedential constraint necessarily involves determining which two...
This chapter examines the intellectual and social contexts in which the American Law Institute (ALI) has operated and how they have influenced the...
Sometimes a police officer can only stop a fleeing suspect by striking or shooting him. When is it morally justified to use such force rather than let...