Improving the quality of the judiciary is a noble cause. I welcome the participation of social scientists in the endeavor. But it is an open question whether social science can meaningfully contribute. Left to their own devices, social scientists are likely to produce work of dubious value. Perhaps judges can… Read More »
In this Essay, I raise a metatheoretical question concerning the relationship between what seem to be two distinct categories of projects that might be lumped together under the rubric of empirical study of judicial performance. One kind of empirical project aims broadly at developing a social-scientific theory of judging, or… Read More »
Much has been written about the process by which judges reach decisions in cases governed by the common law, but very little has been done to test this process empirically. Most empirical efforts have attempted to determine whether and to what extent judges’ political views influence their legal decisions. My… Read More »
The primary goal of the Duke Law Journal’s Symposium on Evaluating Judging, Judges, and Judicial Institutions was to bring together judges and academics researching judges. Conversations between these groups can be constructive on both sides. Judges may benefit from learning about studies that show the influences on judicial performance or… Read More »
What is to be gained by using empirical evidence to rank or “judge” judges? These empirical studies claim two major benefits. First, because the criteria are assertedly apolitical, the resulting rankings will identify the “best” judges across the political spectrum and thereby improve, for instance, the Supreme Court nomination process. Second,… Read More »
In September 2009, we hosted an unusual workshop at Duke Law School. The workshop focused on the empirical evaluation of judges, judging, and judicial institutions. Most work in this area has been driven by the agendas and constraints of empirical researchers, and empiricists from multiple disciplines—including history, sociology, anthropology, political… Read More »
Lately, it seems that the Supreme Court has taken a strong interest in the question whether, and under what circumstances, religious speech and symbolism are constitutionally permissible in government-sponsored settings. Last Term, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court considered whether a city had to allow the Summum religious… Read More »
For the last several decades, the primary divide in American constitutional theory has been between those theorists who label themselves as originalists and those who do not. It is widely understood that the side that does not embrace originalism is populated by proponents of a vast array of disparate constitutional… Read More »
Government increasingly claims the power to control its employees’ expression to protect its own speech, a trend that imperils the public’s interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental… Read More »
In 1984, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that set forth a framework for addressing the problem of ambiguity in statutes that delegate authority to administrative agencies. That opinion, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, is the most famous case in administrative law. The Court stated that a reviewing court… Read More »