Judicial minimalism
Judicial minimalism refers to a philosophy in
Originally stated in Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration (1885),[2] minimalism is one the seven rules of the constitutional avoidance doctrine established in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936) that requires that the Supreme Court of the United States to "not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'"[3][4]
The minimalist viewpoint
Minimalists offer very small, case-specific interpretations of Constitutional Law as an alternative to what they see as the excesses of extremists on both sides. They believe that a stable Constitutional Law is in everybody's interest, and place great importance on the concept of precedent and
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is often hailed by minimalists as their ideal Justice.[5] In a concurring opinion in the 2011 Supreme Court case NASA v. Nelson, Justice Antonin Scalia derided minimalism as a "never-say-never disposition [which] does damage for several reasons".[6] Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, defended the Court's minimalist approach in choosing to "decide the case before us and leave broader issues for another day".[6]
Chief Justice John G. Roberts has been said to operate under an approach of judicial minimalism in his decisions,[7] having stated, "[i]f it is not necessary to decide more to a case, then in my view it is necessary not to decide more to a case."[8]
Summary and complaints against "judicial extremism"
Largely associated with
See also
References
- ISBN 978-0-19-827995-2
- ^ Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)
- ^ Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936)
- ^ Nolan, Andrew (September 2, 2014). The Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance: A Legal Overview (Report). Congressional Research Service. p. 9. Archived from the original on December 30, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
- ^ Sunstein, Cass (2006). Stanford Law Review, Volume 58, Issue 6 - April 2006, "Problems with Minimalism."
- ^ Volokh Conspiracy
- ^ Silagi, Alex (2014-05-01). "Selective Minimalism: The Judicial Philosophy Of Chief Justice John Roberts". Law School Student Scholarship.
- ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-12-09.
Further reading
- Sunstein, Cass R. (2005). Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-08326-9. Sunstein's book, despite its title, has been perceived as an attack on both judicial conservatives and liberal activists..