Reasonably Speaking

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke about his new book, The Authority of the Court and the Perils of Politics, and his views on judicial decision-making with David F. Levi, director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School and president of The American Law Institute.

During the hour-long conversation, Breyer reflects on his 27 years on the Court and discusses the roots of the Court’s authority and its relationship to the political branches of government. The power of the Court, he says, resides in the people — in their faith in the institution, their belief in the rule of law, and their understanding that the Court operates outside the political realm. The peril of politics, he says, is that if people begin to see judges as nothing more than ‘junior league politicians’ — or as making decisions in order to help a political party or to advance a political agenda — the Court’s power will erode, along with the rule of law.

He recalls that the Chief Justice of Ghana once asked him where the Supreme Court got its power, and why Americans accept and abide by its decisions. After all, as Alexander Hamilton famously noted, the Court has no military or economic power to enforce its decisions. In considering the question, he offers examples of Court decisions that were not enforced — or were actively subverted — by the government: Worcester v. Georgia found that the states did not have the power to impose law on Native American land, yet President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision and the U.S. government ultimately forced Native American tribes off their land. Similarly, states refused to enforce Brown v. Board of Education, and segregation in schools persisted for years despite various efforts by the federal government to force integration. 

“I wanted the Chief Justice of Ghana to know that it's not God-given that people would follow what the Court says,” Breyer explains. “If you want a rule of law, if you want it in reality and not on paper, you can't just talk to the judges and you can't just talk to the lawyers. Everybody thinks they want a rule of law. That's how they make their living. But it is the people in the towns, in the villages. Contrary to popular belief, of our 331 million people, 330 million are not lawyers. And they're the ones that have to be convinced that it is in their interest to follow decisions, even when those decisions affect them in a way they don't like, and when those decisions are wrong — because if, after all, it's five to four, somebody's wrong.”

But in America today, Breyer says, very controversial decisions are accepted. Consider a decision as contested as Bush v. Gore, he says. There were no shots fired after Bush v. Gore, he notes, because “Americans have reached a point where they don't even think about the decisions of the Court, not following them. They think it's like the air we breathe. People do. And that doesn't happen by magic. That happens by people understanding the country, by living a history, by having examples.”

That faith in the Court is risked, however, if the public begins to see the Court as a political actor — a perception that the judiciary must counter, he says. He discusses the differences between political decision-making and judicial decision-making, arguing that while judicial philosophies and personal experiences may influence an individual judge’s views, judges must be guided by the law, not political constituents. That doesn’t mean, however, that judges don’t have differing views of what the Constitution means. 

“After a while, I began to understand this is a big country, and people think all kinds of different things. And it is not such a terrible thing to have a Supreme Court with nine members where different presidents appoint different judges,” Breyer says. “Ultimately, the country has to suffer from, or rejoice sometimes, or in any case live with the decisions and interpretations of the Court. What Justice Scalia happens to think, or Justice Breyer or Justice O'Connor, about the Constitution is of great interest to many law professors, but not to most people in the United States. It is the Constitution as interpreted by the Court that matters.”

Breyer also discusses the power of deliberation and compromise as a way for the Court to generate public trust and as a way to develop and strengthen common values that can bind the country together in times of division — “remembering that the Constitution has as a basic principle — one of the things that I think is most important — is the principle that it works. The principle that this society does hold together, the principle that this society has certain basic values, and they work. . . . That's our society. We pull together in light of those rather basic constitutional ideas.”

Join us for this episode of Reasonably Speaking where top scholars in U.S. presidency and political science discuss the the history of the U.S. presidency and its future "post–Trump." 

Moderated by: ALI President David F. Levi

Panel:

• Jack Landman Goldsmith, Harvard Law School
• David M. Kennedy, Stanford University
• Terry M. Moe, Stanford University
• Daphna  Renan, Harvard Law School

The treatment of the children in two distinct areas of the law – child welfare and juvenile justice – is fraught with difficulty even under the best of circumstances. But with the onslaught of the COVID pandemic, the regular challenges and the need to protect children have only been compounded.

In this episode of Reasonably Speaking, juvenile justice scholar and Chief Reporter of the Restatement of the Law, Children and the Law, Elizabeth Scott guides our Children and the Law-exclusive panel through a series of discussions centering on child advocacy and juvenile law during a pandemic. The panel explores how the law defines parental authority, what rights a child has in custody, how lawyers can best represent a child in the system during a pandemic, and more.

Panelists:

• Kristin Henning, Georgetown University Law Center
• Clare Huntington, Fordham University School of Law
• Marsha Levick, Juvenile Law Center

This episode explores the multidistrict litigation (MDL) from their origins to current examples and recommended reforms.

When complex issues effect large numbers of people, MDLs are often seen as the most efficient way to consolidate and manage those cases, recent examples include opioids and Roundup.

Led by MDL expert and scholar Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, participants will discuss the nuances of MDLs and examine how all involved in the process should never lose sight of the human element in these cases. The panel will also explore the role of the MDL judge and address MDL’s pain points as they relate to appellate opportunities, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and more. The episode will conclude with the panel offering some of their own ideas for reform.

Moderator: Elizabeth Chamblee Burch – University of Georgia School of Law

Panelists:

• John H. Beisner – Skadden
• Abbe Gluck – Yale Law School
• Shanin Specter – Kline and Specter

The 2020 election is seeing unprecedented volatility leading up to November 3. Will this volatility make a difference, helping or hurting the system’s capacity to serve its purpose? This is the first of many questions about the 2020 election that this group of election law experts will tackle.

Every election year presents its own unique set of challenges, but 2020 has been a uniquely challenging year. What can voters expect on and after Election Night? Election results are never final until much later – this year on December 14. On that date, electors will be appointed in all states on the basis of the popular vote in each state, but will we declare success? If not, why not; in other words, what would cause the failure to achieve closure by December 14 in one or more pivotal states? Will the pre-election volatility play a significant role in post-Election Day events?

Moderated by: Steven F. Huefner, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Panelists:

Since the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, civil unrest has spread throughout the United States, causing many American citizens to question racial equality in every corner of our society. In this episode we will explore one of those corners, the justice system, to discuss how our courts and judges are addressing the complex topic of racism and racial disparities. The panel also explores racial education programs for federal judges, the disparities in sentencing for Black men in the U.S., and the obligation judges and justices have to provide a justice system that works fairly for all Americans.

Moderated by David F. Levi, ALI President and Director of the Bolch Judicial Center at Duke Law School the panelists are:

In Liu v. SEC (June 22, 2020), the Supreme Court of the United States held, in an enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, that a disgorgement order that did not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and was awarded for victims constituted “equitable relief” that was permissible under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), rather than punitive sanctions, which were historically excluded from the definition of “equitable relief” under the Act.

This episode will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and whether the Court’s reference to “equitable relief” includes the remedy of “disgorgement.” Douglas Laycock, who filed an amiscus brief in support of neither party, will lead this discussion.

Moderated by Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia School of Law and the University of Texas School of Law.

On July 6, the Supreme Court of the United States held that states may replace and even punish “faithless electors,” the term used for a member of the U.S. Electoral College who does not vote for the presidential or vice presidential candidate they pledged to support. This episode will consider the implications of the Court’s ruling and reasoning for a broader set of questions on the Electoral College system and what might happen in this year’s election.

What if there is a 269-269 tie (hardly impossible given current political climate)? What if the electoral votes from one or more states are disputed in Congress, as might happen if a state’s legislature attempts to repudiate the certification of the state’s popular vote on the ground that it was tainted by some form of fraud (perhaps involving absentee ballots distrusted by the state’s legislature)? Is there anything that can be done now, before voting occurs in the fall, to improve the chances that any such Electoral College anomalies will be handled through the rule of law, in a way publicly perceived as appropriate under the Constitution, rather than perceived as a lawless power grab? S

Moderated by: Steven F. Huefner, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Panelists: