Faculty Bibliography

The United States is undergoing a legal realignment, in that salient legal views recently associated with the right are now being espoused by the left, and vice versa. The clearest example involves Chevron deference: a doctrine once championed by conservatives like Justice Antonin Scalia has now been overruled in Loper Bright v. Raimondo—over dissenting votes by all three of the Court’s liberals. Similar points can be made about standing, stare decisis, textualism, positivism, and more. The basic reason for this transformation is straightforward: legal ideologies in power favor discretion, whereas those out of power favor constraint. Conservatives now firmly control the federal judiciary, so they are gradually abandoning their prior posture of constraint, even as liberals adopt it. As a result, the formalism that characterizes today’s legal culture is coming to an end. In the meantime, the left and the right’s mutual repositioning is helping to preserve both a workable legal system and a degree of shared legal culture.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is already beginning to alter legal practice. If optimistic forecasts prove warranted, how might this technology transform judicial opinions—a genre often viewed as central to the law? This Symposium Essay attempts to answer that predictive question, which sheds light on present realities. In brief, the provision of opinions will become cheaper and, relatedly, more widely and evenly supplied. Judicial writings will often be zestier, more diverse, and less deliberative. And as the legal system’s economy of persuasive ability is disrupted, courts will engage in a sort of arms race with the public: judges will use artificially enhanced rhetoric to promote their own legitimacy, and the public will become more cynical to avoid being fooled. Paradoxically, a surfeit of persuasive rhetoric could render legal reasoning itself obsolete. In response to these developments, some courts may disallow AI writing tools so that they can continue to claim the authority that flows from authorship. Potential stakes thus include both the fate of legal reason and the future of human participation in the legal system.

This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The jurisprudential theory is “personal positivism,” which holds that each judge’s publicly known rules of decision are the law for that jurist and, therefore, part of the overall law of the legal system. This theory offers a richer and more useful account of law in the United States today, including its dependence on the views of individual judges. Personal positivism also recognizes that the law is increasingly constituted by the views of competing groups of judges—one liberal, one conservative, and each with its own set of personal rules. At the same time, personal positivism maintains that there is an abundance of genuine law—not just politics—even in contested cases. The problem facing the U.S. legal system, then, isn’t that law is being replaced with politics, but rather that the law is too fragmentary. And the solution is not to ignore or suppress judicial individuality, but to harness it.

Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting the legal views variously maintained by conservatives and liberals, not just in court but also in the academy. Perhaps most fundamentally, the right (because it is newly in power) is becoming less formalist, and the left more so. In addition, the legal left and right are repositioning themselves, or trading places, with respect to topics like interpretive method, deference to agencies, and standing. This dynamic helps to reveal the underlying structure of the law. And greater appreciation of that underlying structure can benefit legal culture by fostering respect, humility, and toleration. These remarks were prepared for the keynote address at the National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars, which was hosted in February 2024 by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law Rehnquist Center.

Perhaps the most surprising feature of the last Supreme Court Term was the extraordinary public discourse on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. According to many commentators, the Court decided what was really a “fake” or “made-up” case brought by someone who asserted standing merely because “she worries.” As a doctrinal matter, these criticisms are unfounded. But what makes this episode interesting is that the criticisms came from the legal Left, which has long been associated with expansive principles of standing. Doubts about standing in 303 Creative may therefore portend a broader standing realignment, in which liberal Justices become jurisdictionally hawkish. In the past, Justices who found themselves out of power have often tried to tighten justiciability principles. So, now that the Court has shifted decidedly rightward, it makes some sense for there to be an ideological reversal on federal court jurisdiction.

Artificial intelligence, or AI, promises to assist, modify, and replace human decision-making, including in court. AI already supports many aspects of how judges decide cases, and the prospect of “robot judges” suddenly seems plausible—even imminent. This Article argues that AI adjudication will profoundly affect the adjudicatory values held by legal actors as well as the public at large. The impact is likely to be greatest in areas, including criminal justice and appellate decision-making, where “equitable justice,” or discretionary moral judgment, is frequently considered paramount. By offering efficiency and at least an appearance of impartiality, AI adjudication will both foster and benefit from a turn toward “codified justice,” an adjudicatory paradigm that favors standardization above discretion. Further, AI adjudication will generate a range of concerns relating to its tendency to make the legal system more incomprehensible, data-based, alienating, and disillusioning. And potential responses, such as crafting a division of labor between human and AI adjudicators, each pose their own challenges. The single most promising response is for the government to play a greater role in structuring the emerging market for AI justice, but auspicious reform proposals would borrow several interrelated approaches. Similar dynamics will likely extend to other aspects of government, such that choices about how to incorporate AI in the judiciary will inform the future path of AI development more broadly.