Curtis Bradley, University of Chicago Law School, and Neil Siegel, Texas A&M Law School, have posted The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons in Judicial Self-Protection:
This Essay explores how the U.S. Supreme Court, despite being vulnerable to defiance of its decisions and political retaliation, has developed tools of judicial self-protection to preserve its institutional authority as well as the Constitution and the rule of law. Arguing that the Court performs not only a legal role that requires interpretation of the law but also a political one that demands institutional preservation, the Essay examines how the Court has historically navigated political threats by using a range of tools—including avoidance, delay, narrow rulings, strategic dicta, and rhetorical appeals. The Essay focuses on three nineteenth-century episodes: the Jeffersonian backlash following the election of 1800, Georgia’s defiance in the Cherokee Cases in the 1830s, and controversies over military trials during Reconstruction. In each instance, the Court adjusted its behavior in response to political threats from the Executive, states, or Congress, and it used the tools of self-protection to avoid direct confrontation while maintaining or even enhancing its authority. The Essay acknowledges the risks and imperfections of such an approach including compromised legal reasoning and potential long-term concessions but it contends that the Court must be politically attentive to be effective. It also cautions against formalist critiques of such judicial behavior that overlook the political foundations of judicial power.
--Dan Ernst
