All Things in Proportion? American Rights Doctrine and the Problem of Balancing

Jud Mathews

Penn State Law

Alec Stone Sweet

Yale University - Yale Law School and Yale Political Science

March 12, 2010

Emory Law Journal, vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 799-875, 2011

This paper describes and evaluates the evolution of rights doctrines in the United States, focusing on the problem of balancing as a mode of rights adjudication. In the current Supreme Court, deep conflict over whether, when, and how courts balance is omnipresent. Elsewhere, we find that the world’s most powerful constitutional courts have embraced a stable, analytical procedure for balancing, known as proportionality. Today, proportionality analysis (PA) constitutes the defining doctrinal core of a transnational, rights-based constitutionalism. This Article critically examines alleged American exceptionalism, from the standpoint of comparative constitutional law and practice. Part II provides an overview of how constitutional judges in other systems use PA, assesses the costs and benefits of adopting it, and contrasts proportionality with American strict scrutiny. Part III recovers the foundations of proportionality in American rights review, focusing on two critical junctures: (1) the emergence of a version of PA in Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine in the late nineteenth century, the core of which persists today; and (2) the consolidation of the strict scrutiny framework in the mid-twentieth century. Part IV demonstrates that the “tiered review” regime chronically produces pathologies that have weakened rights protection in the United States, and undermined the coherence of the Supreme Court’s rights jurisprudence. PA, while not a cure-all for the challenges facing rights-protecting courts, avoids these pathologies by providing a relatively systematic, transparent, and trans-substantive doctrinal structure for balancing. We also show that all three levels of review - rational basis, intermediate review, and strict scrutiny - have, at various points in their evolution, contained core elements of proportionality. In Part V, we argue Supreme Court can and should develop a home-grown version of PA, based on its existing case law and American constitutional traditions and values, and we respond to objections to the argument.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 80

Keywords: constitutional law, balancing, rights, proportionality, comparative law, strict scrutiny, dormant commerce clause, equal protection, freedom of speech

Accepted Paper Series

Download This Paper

Date posted: March 16, 2010 ; Last revised: March 11, 2012

Suggested Citation

Mathews, Jud and Stone Sweet, Alec, All Things in Proportion? American Rights Doctrine and the Problem of Balancing (March 12, 2010). Emory Law Journal, vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 799-875, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1569351 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1569351

Contact Information

Jud Mathews
Penn State Law ( email )
Lewis Katz Building
State College, PA 16802
United States
Alec Stone Sweet (Contact Author)
Yale University - Yale Law School and Yale Political Science ( email )
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
United States
HOME PAGE: http://works.bepress.com/alec_stone_sweet/

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 994
Downloads: 314
Download Rank: 51,736

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 1.859 seconds