Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 MARCH 2021

Competing Theories Of Judicial Decision Making: Formalism

Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Contributor
Arnold & Porter

Arnold & Porter

With over 1,000 lawyers across 16 offices worldwide, Arnold & Porter is renowned for its...

View firm profile
Explore more from Arnold & Porter

We begin our analysis by addressing the foundation of the entire body of data analytic scholarship on appellate judging: competing theories of judicial decision making.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Our latest repost:

We begin our analysis by addressing the foundation of the entire body of data analytic scholarship on appellate judging: competing theories of judicial decision making.

The oldest theory by far is generally known in the literature as "formalism."  This is the theory we all learned in law school, according to which every decision turns on four factors, each completely extrinsic to the background and ideology of the individual judge: (1) the case record on appeal; (2) the applicable law; (3) controlling precedent; and (4) judicial deliberations (at least in the appellate world).  As  Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit has pointed out, Blackstone was describing the formalist theory when he described judges as "the depositories of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land."  In Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton was expounding the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from