Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T02:14:54.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doctrinal Reasoning as a Disruptive Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Jessie Allen
Jessie Allen*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
*
Contact the author at jallen@pitt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legal doctrine is generally thought to contribute to legal decision-making only to the extent it determines substantive results. Yet in many cases, the available authorities are indeterminate. I propose a different model for how doctrinal reasoning might contribute to judicial decisions. Drawing on performance theory and psychological studies of readers, I argue that judges’ engagement with formal legal doctrine might have self-disrupting effects like those performers experience when they adopt uncharacteristic behaviors. Such disruptive effects would not explain how judges ultimately select, or should select, legal results. But they might help legal decision makers to set aside subjective biases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Fall 2018 , pp. 215 - 236
Copyright
© 2018 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Keith Bybee, Peter Gerhart, Haider ala Hamoudi, Deborah Hensler, David Klein, Jules Lobel, and the participants in the 2017 Stanford/Yale/Harvard Junior Faculty Forum for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

Allen, Jessie. 2001. “Blind Faith and Reasonable Doubts: Investigating Belief in the Rule of Law.” University of Seattle Law Review 24:691–719.Google Scholar
Allen, Jessie. 2008. “Theory of Adjudication: Law as Magic.” Suffolk University Law Review 41:773–831.Google Scholar
Allen, Jessie. 2012. “The Persistence of Proximate Cause: How Legal Doctrine Thrives on Skepticism.” Denver University Law Review 90:77–129.Google Scholar
Allen, Jessie. 2015. “Empirical Doctrine.” Case Western Law Review 66:1–49.Google Scholar
Bal, P. Matthijs, and Martijn Veltkamp. 2013. “How Does Fiction Reading Influence Empathy? An Experimental Investigation on the Role of Emotional Transportation.” PLOS ONE 8 (1): e55341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balkin, Jack M. 2013. “Verdi’s High C.” Texas Law Review 91:1687–1709.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2010. “Motivation and Judicial Behavior: Expanding the Scope of Inquiry.” In The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making, ed. David Klein and Gregory Mitchell, 3–25. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benesh, Sara C., and Malia Reddick. 2002. “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alteration of Precedent.” Journal of Policy 64:534–50.Google Scholar
Blackstone, William. 1765. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Brecht, Bertolt. 1964. “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting.” In Brecht on Theatre, ed. John Willett, 91–99. New York: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar
Bybee, Keith J. 2011. “The Rule of Law Is Dead! Long Live the Rule of Law!” In What’s Law Got to Do with It?, ed. Charles G. Geyh, 306–27. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cahn, Edmond. 1952. “Jurisprudence.” Annual Survey of American Law 1952:852–65.Google Scholar
Carter, Lief H., and Thomas F. Burke. 2007. Reason in Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chekhov, Michael. 1991. On the Technique of Acting. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune. 2017. “How to Judge Judge Gorsuch.” February 1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-neil-gorsuch-trump-supreme-court-nominee-edit-0202-20170201-story.html.Google Scholar
Coffin, Frank M. 1980. The Ways of a Judge. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cohen, Felix. 1935. “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.” Columbia Law Review 35:809–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Robert. 1975. Justice Accused. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnaim-Pesso. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:6889–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djikic, Maja, and Keith Oatley. 2014. “The Art in Fiction: From Indirect Communication to Changes of the Self.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8:498–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2006. Justice in Robes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Eliot, George. 1872/1985. Middlemarch. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Emigh, John. 1996. Masked Performance: The Play of Self and Other in Ritual and Theatre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 2013. “Reconsidering Judicial Preferences.” Annual Review of Political Science 16:11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fava, Michelle. 2011. “What Is the Role of Observational Drawing in Contemporary Art and Design Curricula?” In IDATER Online Conference: Graphicacy and Modelling 2010, ed. E. W. L Norman and N. Seery. Loughborough: Design Education Research Group, Loughborough Design School. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/9015/1/wwwIDATER_Online_BOOK%5B1%5D.pdf#page=135.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Brentano’s.Google Scholar
Frank, Jerome. 1947. “Words and Music: Some Remarks on Statutory Interpretation.” Columbia Law Review 47:1259–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 2006. “A World without Trials?” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2006:7–33.Google Scholar
Gedicks, Frederick M. 2017. “Working without a Net: Supreme Court Decision Making as Performance.” Research Paper no. 17-09, BYU Law. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2919682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Tracey E. 1998. “Developing a Positive Theory of Decisionmaking on U.S. Courts of Appeals.” Ohio State Law Journal 58:1635–96.Google Scholar
Geyh, Charles G. 2011. “So What Does Law Have to Do with It?” In What’s Law Got to Do with It?, ed. Charles G. Geyh, 1–14. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Michael D. 2011. “Does Law Matter? Theory and Evidence from Single-Subject Adjudication.” Journal of Legal Studies 40:333–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Green, Leon. 1928. “The Duty Problem in Negligence.” Columbia Law Review 28:1014–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1990. “The Perceived Authority of Law in Judging Constitutional Cases.” Colorado Law Review 61:783–93.Google Scholar
Guthrie, Chris, Jeffrey Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich. 2007. “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases.” Cornell Law Review 93:1–43.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., David Hoffman, Danieli Evans, Eugene Lucci, and Katherine Cheng. 2016. “‘Ideology’ or ‘Situation Sense’? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 164:349–439.Google Scholar
Kidd, David Comer, and Emanuele Castano. 2013. “Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind.” Science 342:377–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, Pauline T. 2007. “Lower Court Discretion.” New York University Law Review 82:383–442.Google Scholar
Klein, David E. 2002. Making Law in the United States Courts of Appeals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, David E. 2017. “Law in Judicial Decision Making.” In The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior, ed. Lee Epstein and Stephanie A. Lindquist, 236–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kozinski, Alex. 1993. “What I Ate for Breakfast and Other Mysteries of Judicial Decision Making.” Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 26:993–99.Google Scholar
Leiter, Brian. 1997. “Rethinking Legal Realism: Toward a Naturalized Jurisprudence.” Texas Law Review 76:267–315.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford, and Jack M. Balkin. 1991. “Law, Music, and Other Performing Arts.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139:1597–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieu, Clara. 2013. “Does an Abstract Artist Need to Be Proficient in Traditional Art Techniques?” April 3. https://claralieu.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/ask-the-art-professor-does-an-abstract-artist-need-to-be-proficient-in-traditional-techniques/.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl N. 1960. The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Manderson, Desmond. 2012. “Modernism, Polarity, and the Rule of Law.” Yale Journal of Law and Humanities 24:475–505.Google Scholar
Marshall, William P. 2011. “Judicial Takings, Judicial Speech, and Doctrinal Acceptance of the Model of the Judge as Political Actor.” Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy 6:1–35.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., and Lewis Kornhauser. 1979. “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce.” Yale Law Journal 88:950–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 1986. “Writing Is a Technology That Restructures Thought.” In The Written Word: Literacy in Translation, ed. Gerd Baumann, 23–50. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1999. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 2008. How Judges Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, Edward, and Malcolm Feeley. 1996. “Creating Legal Doctrine.” Southern California Law Review 69:1989–2037.Google Scholar
Sammons, Jack L. 2015. “Can Law Be Art?” Mercer Law Review 66:527–55.Google Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2009. Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, Frederick. 2013. “Legal Realism Untamed.” Texas Law Review 91:749–80.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard. 1986. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Albert D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.” American Political Science Review 83:557–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Harold J. Spaeth. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sion, Angeli. 2016. “Wearing Personalities, Expanding Emotional Territories—in Conversation with Martha Wilson.” Incident Magazine. https://incidentmag.com/tag/martha-wilson/.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R., and Sue Davis. 1990. “The Impact of Party and Region on Voting Decisions in the United States Courts of Appeals, 1955–1986.” Western Political Quarterly 43:317–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spamann, Holger, and Lars Klöhn. 2016. “Justice Is Less Blind and Less Legalistic Than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45:255–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass, David Schkade, Lisa Ellman, and Andres Sawicki. 2006. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary. Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2006. Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2010. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Marc. 2005. “Critical Legal Theory (without Modifiers) in the United States.” Journal of Political Philosophy 13:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, Stephen J. 2013. “Originalism, Balanced Legal Realism, and Judicial Selection: A Case Study.” Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 22 (2): 165–204.Google Scholar
Wistrich, Andrew J., Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Chris Guthrie. 2014. “Heart versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?” Texas Law Review 93:855–923.Google Scholar
Wolf, Maryanne. 2008. Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar