Strategic Immunity

68 Pages Posted: 13 Apr 2016 Last revised: 4 Oct 2016

See all articles by Aaron Nielson

Aaron Nielson

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School

Christopher J. Walker

Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law

Date Written: April 11, 2016

Abstract

The first rule of administrative law is that discretion can be dangerous. Although discretion is often used for its intended purposes, scholars of the regulatory process understand from both theory and experience that unintended consequences sometimes result. This is one reason why the Supreme Court is cautious when it comes to agency discretion. After decades of preventing agencies from acting in arbitrary or even self-interested ways, the modern Court has developed a fairly sophisticated understanding of the risks and rewards of discretion and why it is essential to pay attention to incentives for the proper exercise of discretion.

That is, unless the Supreme Court is addressing judicial discretion. Then, its sophistication all too often gets tossed aside. Qualified immunity is a perfect example. In Pearson v. Callahan, the Court granted judges confronting novel civil-rights claims maximalist discretion whether to decide constitutional questions for the public’s benefit. The intent behind this new discretion is sound: flexibility allows judges to balance constitutional avoidance versus constitutional stagnation in light of case-specific factors. What the Court forgot, however, is that discretion can also have unintended consequences.

This Article addresses perhaps the most serious of these unintended consequences: strategic behavior by judges. While the Court recognizes that federal agencies may have incentives to use discretion in strategic ways, neither the Justices nor scholars have considered the strategic considerations that can influence a judge’s discretionary decision to clearly establish constitutional rights. The potential for strategic behavior is especially sharp, moreover, when discretion to decide constitutional questions is combined with discretion to issue unpublished, nonprecedential opinions. To illustrate this danger, this Article examines real-world judicial decisionmaking. Reviewing over 800 published and unpublished circuit decisions, this Article identifies significant “panel effects”: politically unified panels are more likely to exercise discretion either to find no constitutional violation, for “all Republican” panels, or to recognize new constitutional rights, for “all Democratic” panels. Yet on mixed panels there are no differences, suggesting a collegial concurrence or a majority compromise to avoid dissent. The decision to publish also appears to be used strategically. For instance, one in five decisions recognizing new constitutional rights is unpublished. This potential for strategic behavior — as in the administrative law context — begs for reform.

Keywords: constitutional litigation, qualified immunity, discretion, strategic behavior, administrative law, delegation

Suggested Citation

Nielson, Aaron and Walker, Christopher Jay, Strategic Immunity (April 11, 2016). Emory Law Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 55-122, 2016; Ohio State Public Law Working Paper No. 339; BYU Law Research Paper No. 16-13. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2763135

Aaron Nielson

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School ( email )

430 JRCB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
United States

Christopher Jay Walker (Contact Author)

Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law ( email )

55 West 12th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
United States
614-247-1898 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.chrisjwalker.com

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
356
rank
80,078
Abstract Views
1,336
PlumX Metrics