Detailed Study Guide on Legal Doctrines and Critical Legal Studies

Legal Doctrines

  • Legal doctrines serve as guides in the legal system, representing a shared set of beliefs and rules that dictate accepted practices and reasoning.

  • Doctrines help in making legal reasoning consistent and predictable.

Specific Legal Doctrine: Stare Decisis

  • Definition: Stare decisis is a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by things decided".

    • It is the principle of following precedents established by previous court rulings.

  • Function of Stare Decisis:

    • When a higher court has made a ruling, lower courts are required to follow it in similar cases.

    • This creates consistency in legal decisions.

  • Advantages of Stare Decisis:

    • Established precedents reduce confusion and uncertainty in legal interpretation.

    • Future cases can reference prior rulings, which helps streamline legal proceedings.

    • Example: If the first court case determining that hitting someone in the face is assault sets a precedent, future cases do not have to revisit this question.

  • Supreme Court's Role:

    • The Supreme Court has the discretion to either uphold or overturn precedents.

    • It has the authority to shift legal interpretations in ways that lower courts cannot.

Justices and Precedent

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the importance of precedent during her confirmation hearing.

    • She acknowledged the obligation of judges to follow precedents while expressing the potential for deviation as a Supreme Court Justice.

  • The doctrine of stare decisis values the stability and predictability it brings to the law.

    • Precedents are considered vital for societal order and for judges to acknowledge the careful reasoning of those who came before them.

Critical Legal Studies (CLS)

  • Definition: Critical Legal Studies is a body of literature or framework that critiques the traditional understanding of legality and the law.

  • Relationship to Other Legal Theories:

    • CLS is considered foundational to other theories such as Critical Race Theory, Feminist Legal Theory, and Queer Legal Theory.

  • CLS argues that the law reflects societal biases and power imbalances, challenging the notion of law as inherently just or neutral.

Historical Context of Critical Legal Studies

  • Emerged in the 1970s, specifically out of Harvard Law School during the Civil Rights Movement.

    • Scholars and students rebelled against traditional legal education, demanding a more contextual understanding of law.

  • Key Ideas: Law is not merely a set of clear rules; it is shaped by who holds power and who is marginalized, leading to unjust outcomes under certain circumstances.

Major Ideas in Critical Legal Studies

  1. Indeterminacy of Legal Doctrine:

    • CLS posits that legal doctrines do not definitively predict outcomes, as they can be interpreted in various ways.

    • The trajectory of legal decisions is often influenced by social, political, and ideological factors.

  2. Social Justice and Law:

    • Scholars argue that legal frameworks often perpetuate inequality rather than correct it.

  3. Uncertainty in Legal Application:

    • The traditional view holds that laws are like train tracks, leading to predictable outcomes.

    • CLS challenges this by asserting that outcomes can vary significantly due to interpretative flexibility in the law.

Example of Legal Indeterminacy: Personhood

  • Case Study - Citizens United (2010):

    • The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can be considered persons under the law, allowing them to spend money in political campaigns.

    • This blurred the understanding of "person" and demonstrated how legal definitions could evolve unpredictably.

Legal Doctrine versus Law in Action

  • Law on the Books vs Law in Action:

    • Law on the books refers to statutes and regulations written in legal documents.

    • Law in action refers to how these laws are applied and enforced in real life.

  • Gaps often exist between written law and practical enforcement, leading to disparities in legal outcomes.

  • Traditional scholars might point to institutional deficiencies as explanations, while CLS implies fundamental issues with legal principles themselves.

Case Examples Illustrating Gaps in Legal Interpretation

  1. Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza:

    • Ruling established free speech rights in private property contexts.

  2. Lloyd E. Tanner Case:

    • Contradicted the previous ruling by denying free speech rights in a similar context, creating confusion about the application of precedents.

  3. Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board:

    • Further undermined previous rulings on free speech in private properties, illustrating inconsistency in legal interpretation.

  • Critical Legal Studies scholars would argue this randomness showcases the indeterminate nature of legal doctrines and precedents, questioning the reliability of legal rulings.

Conclusion

  • The importance of understanding both traditional and critical perspectives on law:

    • Students are encouraged to grasp the reasons for gaps between law on the books and law in action, which will support their understanding of legal systems and doctrines.

    • Emphasizing that laws are not always applied consistently and political, social, and ideological factors can shape outcomes.