Reluctant Judicial Factfinding: When Minimalism and Judicial Modesty Go Too Far
Publication year | 2009 |
I. The Minimalism Debate, and a Competing Argument for an Increased Judicial Role
Judicial minimalism is all the rage among a wide range of judges and commentators. The basic idea is not new: that the Supreme Court should exercise restraint in striking down laws based on constitutional rights is a traditional argument of judicial conservatives, originalists, and others with qualms about broad constitutional decisions.(fn1) In this vein, Douglas Kmiec praises one of the Roberts Court's first high-profile cases,
What is new is minimalism's support from those who support decisions broadening constitutional rights. Cass Sunstein famously agrees with
Sunstein similarly splits the difference on other controversial rights, defending how the Court simultaneously refused to strike a ban on assisted suicide(fn7) yet struck a criminal ban on nontraditional sex.(fn8) Sunstein said that in the latter case, however, he "would have preferred a narrower rationale for the Court's conclusion": "For substantive due process, a form of minimalism seems best, embodied in a willingness to reject some traditions, but in a way that is usually respectful of democratic judgments and that attempts to avoid the most contentious debates... ."(fn9)
Minimalism has its limitations and critics, of course. Sunstein himself notes that minimalism is not the panacea for all jurisprudence: "Any defense of minimalist adjudication is essentially the same in principle as a defense of standards over rules-and there is no reason to think that such a defense can be made convincing in all of the contexts" where the Court adjudicates.(fn10) In a more critical vein, Tracy Thomas argues that one major manifestation of the Court's minimalism-its declaration of a preference for "proportionality" rather than breadth in remedies- "elevates the preferences of defendant wrongdoers above justice to plaintiffs. This perversion of the remedial process into protection for the wrongdoer is a threat to the rule of law . .. ."(fn11)
Whatever the merits of minimalism in constitutional adjudication, this Essay argues that in another aspect of federal adjudication-what this Essay terms "reluctant judicial factfinding"-we already have too much minimalism. In certain areas of law, courts are quite reluctant to engage in close scrutiny of critically important facts, instead falling back on policies that avoid such factfinding, including:
Parts II, III, and IV discuss each of these three areas of reluctant judicial factfinding. Then, Part V offers some thoughts as to possible causes of this reluctance to undertake factual inquiries that statutes, rules, and Supreme Court precedent instruct district and appellate courts to undertake. One possibility is that hostility to litigation motivates courts to shy away from detailed factfinding that certain cases require. Such hostility likely is part of the story-at least as to some courts that exhibit an unusual degree of hostility to certain kinds of cases. But more fundamentally, even a judge not at all hostile to litigation may shy away from the sort of detailed factual look at a party that would require the judge to second-guess attorney motivations in discovery, to second-guess judgment calls by complex institutions such as prisons or universities, or to second-guess the details of a workplace anti-bias program. Such reluctance may derive from an otherwise commendable judicial modesty-yet in the three areas this Essay discusses, judicial second-guessing of litigants is mandated by law, and refusal to second-guess just yields poor factual findings. In short, judges should not shy away from aggressive factfinding roles where their authority and need to do so is clear, even if it stretches judges past understandable limits of their comfort zone.
II. Avoiding Factfinding by Relying Upon Formality Over Substance: Insufficient Scrutiny of Anti-Discrimination Programs
In employment discrimination and harassment cases, two key defenses for employers turn on the quality of their anti-discrimination and anti-harassment programs. Unfortunately, the case law on these defenses shows little judicial appetite for the sort of fact-laden, subjective inquiries these defenses require of judges.
First,
Second, an employment discrimination plaintiff can recover punitive damages against an employer only when the employer acted "with malice or with reckless indifference" to the employee's antidiscrimination rights.(fn15) In
Employer programs are key to both the
Both
This approach many courts are taking is one of facial adequacy-an employer merely has to check the boxes of the standard anti-bias program-that reflects a judicial reluctance to undertake the sort of scrutiny of anti-bias programs that the Supreme Court has made an important part of many discrimination and harassment cases. That many courts are relying only on formalities rather than substance is unfortunate, given the extensive criticism of many employer programs as pro forma, ineffectual, or worse. "Many of the internal dispute resolution mechanisms developed by employers ... consist of boilerplate from the most recent...
To continue reading
Request your trial