On Academic Fads and Fashions

Like everyone else, academics are susceptible to informational and reputational signals. Sometimes academics lack confidence in their methods and beliefs, and they pay a great deal of attention to the methods and beliefs of others. The academic study of law is particularly subject to cascade effects, as people follow signals that they participate in amplifying. Some of these effects run their course quickly, whereas others last a long time. Leaders can play a special role in starting and stopping cascades; external shocks play a special role in the academic study of law; sometimes like-minded people within academia move one another to extremes. This informal essay, the Foreword to the forthcoming annual book review issue of the Michigan Law Review, discusses these points in a tentative and impressionistic way, with brief comparisons to other fields

Avoiding Absurdity? A New Canon in Regulatory Law

Courts have recently developed a new principle of interpretation: Administrative agencies are not bound by the literal language of regulatory statutes, if they are attempting to ensure against absurd or patently unreasonable outcomes. This principle is an effort to allow agencies to overcome the occasionally pathological rigidity of regulatory statutes, at least when those statutes must be applied in circumstances that Congress could not possibly anticipate. The new principle deserves widespread approval. After all, courts have long refused to interpret statutes literally in cases of absurdity. While it is possible to question the extent to which courts should feel free to inquire into the absurdity of an application of a statutory text, agencies have strong advantages over courts, because they are in a better position to know whether literalism, or departures from literalism, will improve the regulatory system. These points are connected with a more general one: Theories of interpretation should focus less on abstractions about democracy and legitimacy, and more on institutional capacities and concrete consequences. An appreciation of this suggestion fits well with courts' emerging enthusiasm for allowing agencies to interpret statutes more flexibly than courts do

Minimalism at War

When national security conflicts with individual liberty, reviewing courts might adopt one of three general orientations: National Security Maximalism, Liberty Maximalism, and minimalism. National Security Maximalism calls for a great deal of deference to the President, above all because of his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Liberty Maximalism asks courts to assume the same liberty-protecting posture in times of war as in times of peace. Minimalism asks courts to follow three precepts: the President needs clear congressional authorization for intruding on interests having a strong claim to constitutional protection; fair hearings should generally be provided to those who have been deprived of their freedom; and courts should discipline their own authority through narrow, incompletely theorized rulings. Of the three positions, Liberty Maximalism is the easiest to dismiss; courts will not and should not adopt it. National Security Maximalism is far more plausible, but it is in grave tension with the constitutional structure, and it is built on excessive optimism about the incentives of the President. The most appealing approach is minimalism, which does remarkably well in capturing prominent decisions of the Supreme Court in World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the war on terrorism

Impersonal Default Rules vs. Active Choices vs. Personalized Default Rules: A Triptych

Impersonal default rules, chosen by private or public institutions, establish settings and starting points for countless goods and activities -- cell phones, rental car agreements, computers, savings plans, health insurance, websites, privacy, and much more. Some of these rules do a great deal of good, but others might be poorly chosen, perhaps because those who select them are insufficiently informed, perhaps because they are self-interested, perhaps because one size does not fit all. The existence of heterogeneity argues against impersonal default rules. The obvious alternative to impersonal default rules, of particular interest when individual situations are diverse, is active choosing, by which people are required to make decisions on their own. The choice between impersonal default rules and active choosing depends largely on the costs of decisions and the costs of errors. In complex and unfamiliar areas, impersonal default rules have significant advantages, but where people prefer to choose, and where learning is both feasible and important, active choosing may be best, especially if people’s situations are relevantly dissimilar. At the same time, it is increasingly possible for private and public institutions to produce highly personalized default rules, which reduce the problems with one-size-fits-all defaults. In principle, personalized default rules could be designed for every individual in the relevant population. Collection of the information that would allow accurate personalization might be burdensome and expensive, and might also raise questions about privacy. But at least when choice architects can be trusted, personalized default rules offer almost all of the advantages of active choosing without the disadvantages

Of Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning

Can computers, or artificial intelligence, reason by analogy? This essay urges that they cannot, because they are unable to engage in the crucial task of identifying the normative principle that links or separates cases. Current claims, about the ability of artificial intelligence to reason analogically, rest on an inadequate picture of what legal reasoning actually is. For the most part, artificial intelligence now operates as a kind of advanced version of LEXIS, offering research assistance rather than analogical reasoning. But this is a claim about current technology, not about inevitable limitations of artificial intelligence; things might change in the future

Is Deontology a Heuristic? On Psychology, Neuroscience, Ethics, and Law

A growing body of psychological and neuroscientific research links dual-process theories of cognition with moral reasoning (and implicitly to legal reasoning as well). The relevant research appears to show that at least some deontological judgments are connected with rapid, automatic, emotional processing, and that consequentialist judgments (including utilitarianism) are connected with slower, more deliberative thinking. These findings are consistent with the claim that deontological thinking is best understood as a moral heuristic – one that generally works well, but that also misfires. If this claim is right, it may have large implications for many debates in politics, morality, and law, including those involving the role of retribution, the free speech principle, religious liberty, the idea of fairness, and the legitimacy of cost-benefit analysis. Nonetheless, psychological and neuroscientific research cannot rule out the possibility that consequentialism is wrong and that deontology is right. It tells us about the psychology of moral and legal judgment, but it does no more. On the largest questions, it leaves moral and legal debates essentially as they were before

Extremism and Social Learning

When members of deliberating groups speak with one another, their predeliberation tendencies often become exacerbated as their views become more extreme. The resulting phenomenon—group polarization—has been observed in many settings, and it bears on the actions of juries, administrative tribunals, corporate boards, and other institutions. Polarization can result from rational Bayesian updating by group members, but in many contexts, this rational interpretation of polarization seems implausible. We argue that people are better seen as Credulous Bayesians, who insufficiently adjust for idiosyncratic features of particular environments and put excessive weight on the statements of others where there are 1) common sources of information; 2) highly unrepresentative group membership; 3) statements that are made to obtain approval; and 4) statements that are designed to manipulate. Credulous Bayesianism can produce extremism and significant blunders. We discuss the implications of Credulous Bayesianism for law and politics, including media policy and cognitive diversity on administrative agencies and courts

Standing for Animals

From the legal point of view, there is nothing at all new or unfamiliar in the idea of "animal rights;" on the contrary, it is entirely clear that animals have legal rights. Indeed, the rise of legal rights for animals has been one of the most distinctive features of the last thirty years of federal statutory law. An investigation of the question of standing helps show that the real issues involve problems of enforcement and scope. Human beings often do and should have standing to protect animal rights; animals lack such standing, but only because Congress has failed to give them standing. Animal welfare statutes should be amended to grant a private cause of action, to human beings and animals alike, against those who violate them, so as to allow private claimants to supplement agency enforcement efforts. This modest step could do a great deal to prevent the unjustified suffering of animals