American Legal Realism: Law as Judicial Pronouncement Professor Susan Dimock York University 2 ! "o#yrig$t % Susan Dimock 2 !

&ot to 'e used wit$out written #ermission of t$e co#yrig$t $older( )liver *endell +olmes, -.$e Pat$ of Law/ 012! Jerome 3rank, Law and the Modern Mind 024 .$eory of legal reasoning or ad5udication( )##osed to t$e "onventional 6iew of Ad5udication( Conventional View: Judges only a##ly t$e law w$ic$ ot$ers make( Judges are #assive, 'ound 'y law t$at #re7e8ists t$eir 5udgments( "$anges to law made 'y 5udges are corrections rat$er t$an alterations( )nly legislatures can make new law( Ad5udication is mec$anical, logical, deductive reasoning( Judges are to im#artially a##ly t$e law w$ic$ ot$ers make( Realist View: Ad5udication is not logical or deductive( Judges are not im#artial( .$ere is no law t$at #re7e8ists t$e 5udgment of 5udges( Judges make and c$ange law( Statutes and ot$er sources of law are not law until courts say t$ey are law( *$at a statute re9uires cannot 'e s#ecified until courts inter#ret and a##ly it( Holmes Law is w$atever t$e courts will use t$e #u'lic mig$t to enforce( Law is a #rofession concerned wit$ t$e use of #u'lic force 'y courts( Sources of law :statutes, #recedents, legal rig$ts and duties; are all 5ust #ro#$ecies a'out w$at courts will do( Study of law < study of -systemati=ed #redictions/ of w$at courts will do( .$roug$ suc$ study we mig$t 'e a'le to make generali=ations> make t$e rules laid down 'y courts more

#recise> and systemati=e court decisions into a co$erent w$ole( :3rank does not even we can do t$is(; Law is t$e system of #redictions even a 'ad man wants to know( *$at is t$e law? Story of t$e Jones@ and t$e *illiams@ family ta8is com#anies( Law is #rediction or actual decision of a court( Judging and Judicial Reasoning Recall conventional view of 5udicial reasoning as deductive( Rule or #rinci#le of law( 3acts of t$e case( "onclusion A decision( Realists deny( Judges work 'ack from conclusion to #remises :#recedents, rules, #rinci#les, statutes; t$at su##ort it( B8am#le: A drunk driver $its and in5ures anot$er #erson( Cs it -assault wit$ intent to kill/ or -reckless driving/? Answer is determined 'y 5udge@s view of a##ro#riate sentence( *$at leads t$e 5udge to draw t$e original conclusion? 3rank Cdiosyncratic 'iases, #ersonal affections or animosities, #re5udices( Personal 'iases affecting t$e 5udge@s assessment of t$e facts of t$e case: sym#at$ies or anti#at$ies to witnesses, lawyers, t$e #arties( *ill affect t$e 5udge@s 5udgments of credi'ility, and w$at is literally $eard or remem'ered 'y t$e 5udge( .$e testimony of witnesses is itself 'iased 'y #ersonal c$aracteristics and idiosyncrasies( *itness testimony relies on falli'le inferences from w$at was actually seen or $eard( 3act ske#ticism(

Are 5udges t$en free to decide a case any way t$ey want? Law consists of t$e #articular decisions of courts( Dut t$ere are sources of law :rules courts ado#t for t$e settling of cases> #recedents> statutes;

Dut t$ese do not determine a correct outcome to a case( Rule ske#ticism( Precedents

Precedents are illusory: too vague and general to determine future cases( .$e facts of every case are too uni9ue to determine t$e a##lications of t$e rules( .$ere are #recedents t$at can su##ort any conclusion( Judges s$ould ar'itrate :e9uity; rat$er t$an issue 5udgments :legalistic;( Separation of Law and Morals

0; .$e 'ad man cares a'out one 'ut not t$e ot$er( 2; .$e limits of our legal rig$ts and duties are not coe8tensive wit$ our moral rig$ts and duties( 4; Eorally 'ad statutes can 'e, $ave 'een, and are, enforced( F; &ormative words :rig$ts, duty, malice, intent, negligence, etc(; $ave different meanings in legal and moral conte8ts( Cn law: duty 5ust means lia'ility to unwanted conse9uences> does not matter w$et$er ta8 or fine( Duty to kee# contract < #rediction t$at you will #ay damages if you don@t( Duty not to commit tort < lia'le to #ay com#ensation( Rig$t to grant a lease < rig$t to make t$e lease or #ay damages( Eoral deals wit$ t$e actual internal state of an individual@s mind: w$at sA$e intends( Law deals wit$ e8ternal signs and actions( B8: meeting of minds vs( signs( Wh Legal Realism is Resisted Descri#tively at odds wit$ w$at 5udges say t$ey do( Judges deny t$at t$ey make law( .$ey say t$ey are a##lying e8isting law, even to new cases, and 5udicial decisions are written to su##ort t$is view(

Ct undermines a comforta'le fiction: t$at t$e world is com#letely #redicta'le( Legislative c$anges to law are #ros#ective, so fit wit$ desire for desire for #redicta'ility(

Dut 5udicial c$anges are retroactive and cannot 'e made fully #redicta'le(

Ct undermines t$e t$eory t$at 5udicial reasoning is deductive from general #rinci#les( Dasis of certainty, agreement, neutrality or im#artiality(

Ct undermines t$e se#aration of lawmaking and ad5udication, making 5udges #olitical actors( Law is determined 'y t$e #ractice of 5udges, w$o make controversial 5udgments a'out t$e relative im#ortance of com#eting interests or aims, a'out w$at is t$e 'est #u'lic #olicy( .$ey often make 5udgments 'ased on com#romises, e8ce#tions, considerations of social advantage( Since 5udges must make controversial 5udgments a'out t$e #u'lic interest in deciding cases, t$ey $ave a duty to do so well(

*orries from :0; democracy and :2; 5ustice(