Conventions in Court

Adrian Vermeule

Harvard Law School

November 14, 2013

Harvard Public Law Working Paper 13-46

In the Commonwealth nations, a constitutional “convention” denotes an unwritten but obligatory constitutional custom or norm. The question I will address is whether public law in the United States should be understood to permit, require or forbid federal courts to incorporate conventions into their decisions. My major claim is that public law should adopt an approach that has achieved consensus status in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth – what I will call the “modern Commonwealth view.” This approach holds that while courts may and should recognize conventions, they may not and should not enforce them. The main strength of the modern Commonwealth view is that it is not either of two other leading views, which I will call the “classical Diceyan view” and the “incorporationist view” respectively. I will argue that the two competing views are untenable and undesirable, and that the modern Commonwealth view triumphs faute de mieux – for lack of a better, or even any feasible, alternative. Moreover, I will claim that in important cases, especially recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has implicitly moved toward just this approach.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: November 15, 2013 ; Last revised: December 19, 2013

Suggested Citation

Vermeule, Adrian, Conventions in Court (November 14, 2013). Harvard Public Law Working Paper 13-46. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2354491 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354491

Contact Information

Adrian Vermeule (Contact Author)
Harvard Law School ( email )
1525 Massachusetts
Griswold 500
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,003
Downloads: 225
Download Rank: 106,854