Monday, March 02, 2020

Teaching Constitutional Law in a World Where the Justices Just Make Up the Law

By Eric Segall

I am often asked by other law professors how I teach constitutional law given my hyper-critical views about the Supreme Court. I respond by saying that: 1) the subject is on the bar exam so of course I emphasize and make clear the black letter "law;" 2) the class is wonderful for helping students improve their critical thinking; 3) if you are going to practice constitutional law you need to learn how to talk the talk of formalism and legal rules; and 4) I disclose my priors to students on the first day of class so they have an idea what the course is going to be like.

Nevertheless, I understand why I get this question all the time. As Professor Christopher Sprigman recently said on Twitter, he tried teaching constitutional law but stopped "because my students were unhappy when I would point out how the Supreme Court was making it up, often incoherently. Students want to believe in what is in reality a bad discipline." Numerous other professors have complained about the same frustration to me over the years.

Professor Sprigman's charge that the Justices are just "making it up" needs to be unpacked just a bit because many Supreme Court experts likely disagree or perhaps phrase what the Justices do less insultingly. But Sprigman is exactly right. In most constitutional law cases, there is no helpful text or history and the Justices (and lower courts) spend most of their time discussing prior Supreme Court decisions (where there was also no helpful text or history).

I will support Sprigman's descriptive account with 10 representative examples that show how judge-made constitutional law is little more than the aggregate of the Justices' value preferences or, on some occasions, the results of bargaining among the Justices to reach a five-vote result that makes little sense. I could provide 100 examples if space and the readers' patience allowed. I did provide many more examples in my first book. After the examples, I explain why judge-made constitutional law is different from judge-made common law and then close with a few more thoughts about teaching.

1) The law of affirmative action in higher education is that racial quotas are per se unconstitutional but schools seeking a "critical mass" of minority students is fully constitutional. I dare anyone to explain how a school knows whether it has enough minority students to constitute a "critical mass" without having a number representing a floor of minority students (in other words, a quota).

2) The law of taxpayer standing is that a plaintiff may challenge a statute passed by Congress under Article I, Section 8 that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause, but a plaintiff may not challenge the expenditure of government funds by the President of the United States that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause if those funds come from general appropriations. There is no difference between the respective personal stakes of the plaintiffs in those two cases.

3) On the same day, the Court held that two Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses violated the Establishment Clause, but a Ten Commandments display on public property near the Texas Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court building itself, by the way, has a Ten Commandments display.

4)  The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against states by citizens of "another state" but the Justices have prohibited suits against states by citizens of their own states even though no constitutional text bars such suits.

5) The Eleventh Amendment applies to "any suit in law or equity" but the Court has said it does not prohibit requests for injunctive relief (equity) while it does bars suits for damages (law).

6) There is not a single word in the Constitution suggesting that Congress may not use its enumerated powers to direct states legislatures and executives to enforce federal law, yet the Court has held that Congress may not, even pursuant to an express grant of power, direct states to help enforce federal law (unless the law also applies to non-state actors as well as the states).

7) Congress may require state courts to hear cases involving federal issues even if state courts don't want to hear those cases. In other words, Congress can tell state judges what to do despite the restriction in No. 6.

8) There was a fairly lengthy period of years when the Court interpreted the Establishment Clause to allow states to provide textbooks free of charge to children attending private religious schools but not any other materials such as maps, erasers, and computers. During this period, states could give atlases whose only content was maps to students attending religious schools but not just maps themselves. In fairness, the Court now allows states to give just about anything it wants to religious schools as long as it provides the same materials to non-religious schools.

9) A member of the military on trial for serious crimes arising out of his service is not allowed an Article III Court (and jury) but a person against whom a person in bankruptcy has filed a state law tort or contract claim has a right to an Article III Judge.

10) A state may not require "pregnancy crisis centers" to inform their visitors of the availability of state resources for abortion because doing so violates the first amendment, but a state does not violate the first amendment by requiring family planning clinics to provide materials to its visitors listing state resources for childbirth and adoption.

I could go on and on. On the one hand, teaching constitutional law is an excellent way to improve the critical thinking skills of our students. On the other hand, it is quite difficult to teach constitutional law honestly and not admit to the students that it is all just "made up" by the Justices.

One may object to all this by arguing that Supreme Court-made constitutional law is indistinguishable from judge-made common law, which has a long pedigree. There are, however. two major problems with that analogy. First, common law decisions can be overturned by legislators whereas it takes a constitutional amendment to reverse a Supreme Court constitutional decision.

Second, as a general matter, state court judges who issue common law decisions do not pretend "text and history make us do it." The policy concerns driving the common law are usually discussed openly by judges whereas the Supreme Court likes to pretend its decisions are based on non-policy formal considerations. This difference is important because it cuts to the heart of government transparency.

The reality is that the Justices do just "make up" most of constitutional law and maybe because the stakes are so high, much of that law is incoherent. I sympathize with professors like Christopher Sprigman who just can't bear to pretend otherwise and who do not want to spend their careers seeing how students are disappointed by this reality. For me, however, as I tell my students during the first day of every course I teach, my descriptive account of how the Supreme Court decides cases is not meant to make them cynical but to make them realistic. And the road to realism is paved with abundant tools to make them better critical thinkers and thus better lawyers.

7 comments:

Joe said...

Justice Breyer in his writings makes clear that there are various judgment calls that are a result of judicial value judgment calls. He particularly bluntly says this in a few of his opinions on religious matters such as vouchers and the Ten Commandments.

I do think there are other justices that have not merely said "text and history made us do it" though yes there is a lot of that especially when they have to write for the Court. I think as a whole liberal leaning justices [there are more aboveboard lower court judges no so liberal like Prof. Segall's friend, now retired, Judge Posner too] in recent years have been more honest here. Traditionally, someone like Justice Harlan II also to me from a conservative path made clear he supported certain overall values and made judgment calls. Someone like Brennan and Marshall also were upfront of what they were doing repeatedly, if using their power in arguably troubling ways.

I also would note that state judges also practice constitutional review. The Kansas Supreme Court, using its state constitution, held that choosing an abortion was a state constitutional right in a way stronger than currently true under the federal constitution. It had a long discussion on history when doing so.

It is quite true it is harder to override a federal constitutional rule though there repeatedly are workarounds in practice and over time new judges have been appointed that have changed the law to match the priors of the new political regime. And, to the degree one supports constitutional review in such and such a way (Prof. Segall does so with his own strict test), it is correct to be transparent about how one does it.

Eric Segall said...

Thanks Joe, thoughtful comment!!

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shubha Ghosh said...

At one level this describes common law judging. There are issues with reducing constitutional law judging with common law judging. For one thing, idiosyncracies in common law cases often have to do with factual differences in cases as well as differences in how law is applied to the facts. Con law purports to be about foundational principles. Facts should not disturb those. But they do as the 4th Amendment cases show.

Tracy Matt said...

I am the most happiest woman on earth right now, My husband that left me few months ago just came back to me last night crying for me to take him back. dr.unity is a true and real Psychics He brought back my husband" I am Helen Fisher from USA. I have been married for over 13 years, my husband left me for another woman and i wanted him back. I did everything within my reach to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so badly because of the love I had for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back , I had no choice than to try it. I messaged the spell caster called dr unity, and he assured me there was no problem and that everything will be okay before 11 hours. He cast the spell and surprisingly 11 hours later my husband called me. I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that had happened He wanted me to return to him. He also said he loved me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again.thanks to dr unity for the real spell and if you have any problem contact him he is honest.Here’s his contact Call/Whats-app him: +2348055361568 ,or Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,visit his website:https://drunity.simplesite.com

Tracy Matt said...

I am the most happiest woman on earth right now, My husband that left me few months ago just came back to me last night crying for me to take him back. dr.unity is a true and real Psychics He brought back my husband" I am Helen Fisher from USA. I have been married for over 13 years, my husband left me for another woman and i wanted him back. I did everything within my reach to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so badly because of the love I had for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to my friend and she suggested that I should rather contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back , I had no choice than to try it. I messaged the spell caster called dr unity, and he assured me there was no problem and that everything will be okay before 11 hours. He cast the spell and surprisingly 11 hours later my husband called me. I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that had happened He wanted me to return to him. He also said he loved me so much. I was so happy and went to him that was how we started living together happily again.thanks to dr unity for the real spell and if you have any problem contact him he is honest.Here’s his contact Call/Whats-app him: +2348055361568 ,or Email him at: Unityspelltemple@gmail.com ,visit his website:https://drunity.simplesite.com