Reckless Caution: The Perils of Judicial Minimalism

New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 5, No. 347, 2010

47 Pages Posted: 24 Mar 2012 Last revised: 9 Nov 2015

See all articles by Tara A. Smith

Tara A. Smith

University of Texas at Austin

Date Written: 2010

Abstract

Judicial Minimalism is the increasingly popular view that judges decide cases properly to the extent that they minimize their own imprint on the law by meticulously assessing 'one case at a time,' ruling on narrow and shallow grounds, eschewing broader theories, and altering entrenched legal practices only incrementally. Minimalism’s ascendancy across the political spectrum, being embraced by advocates of both right-wing and left-wing ideologies, is touted as a sign of its appropriate value-neutrality.

This paper argues that such sought-after neutrality is, in fact, untenable. While others have objected to some of Minimalism’s specific tenets, critics have missed its more fundamental failing: it is an incoherent concept. On analysis, Minimalism’s several planks and rationales prove mutually contradictory and, correspondingly, offer conflicting guidance to judges. Thus the reason that Minimalism can appeal to people of such disparate substantive views is that in practice, it is merely a placeholder invoked to sanction a grab-bag of desiderata rather than a distinctive method of decision-making that offers genuine guidance.

Suggested Citation

Smith, Tara A., Reckless Caution: The Perils of Judicial Minimalism (2010). New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 5, No. 347, 2010, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1270293

Tara A. Smith (Contact Author)

University of Texas at Austin ( email )

2317 Speedway
Austin, TX 78712
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
102
Abstract Views
597
rank
288,592
PlumX Metrics