The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Who Decides" by Jeffrey S. Sutton
A must-read book from the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit.
Jeffrey S. Sutton is the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit. But he is also a prolific scholar on state constitutional law and federalism. In the span of three years, he has published two genre-defining books with Oxford University Press. His output is truly remarkable. In 2018, Sutton published 51 Imperfect Solutions: State and the Making of American Constitutional Law. This year, Sutton published the follow-up book, Who Decides? State as Laboratories and Constitutional Experimentation. All students of constitutional law should keep both books close at hand.
I don't have the time to do a full-review at this time, but I wanted to flag a section from Chapter 1 of the new book, titled "Umpiring and Gerrymandering." Sutton drew an analogy between the Chief Justice's "umpire" analogy and gerrymandering that is so insightful. Here is an excerpt:
Judicial review in its most extreme forms may be the greatest kind of gerrymandering ever known. Which creates this puzzle: Why is it that Americans are contemptuous of electoral-district gerrymandering yet continue to embrace having judges make ever-more-important decisions that the American people never approved? If Americans perceive one form of gerrymandering as problematic, should they not be skeptical of a more undemocratic form of it? It's a question surrounded by exclamations. If I had to identify one risk to the state and federal judiciary over all others, it's this: The American people are catching on. Imprudent though they may be in the short term, they are not imprudent in the long term. They are slowly, fitfully, resentfully, coming to appreciate how large the footprint of the federal courts on American government has grown— and how much larger it is than anything the Framers ever could have imagined. Sad to acknowledge, the typical American, I fear, has come to think of judicial interpretations of our constitutions as another form of gerrymandering— another way, perhaps the most extreme way, for one group or another to get what they want at the expense of their political opponents— and at the expense of large swaths of the American people.
Well said.
From an aesthetic perspective, I love the cover. Using the 50 states to form the Capitol rotunda is a very thoughtful way to evoke the imagery from the first book. I also appreciate that Sutton does not need to brag about the fact that he is a judge on the cover. His book stands on its own, without regard to his station.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It seems fairly obvious to me that the typical American has not come to think anything of the sort. Indeed, I suspect it would be more accurate to say that virtually zero Americans have come to think that.
Just Sutton and Somin.
Judicial review is bad on the whole imho but its not "gerrymandering" which is a specific term for a specific thing.
If the courts don't keep government in check, who will?!
"If the courts don't keep government in check, who will?!"
How about: The People?!
You know that Prof. Blackman and Prof. Somin are different people, right?
Sutton may or may not be a great judge. He may or may not be a great writer. But Josh's main point in this particular post does the judge no favors, I think.
"If Americans perceive one form of gerrymandering as problematic, should they not be skeptical of a more undemocratic form of it [ie, judicial review]?..."
The short answer to this is: No. The longer answer is: No, of course not.
When a highly educated and highly trained person is elected or appointed to conduct judicial reviews, I think people tend to trust the results. And even when a particular result is not to our liking, we can sigh and fall back in, "Well, that didn't go our way. But the court has ruled for us in the past, and we can't win them all."
I think that people explicitly or implicitly recognize that these reviewing courts are ALSO reviewed by higher courts! (With the exception of the 9 justices on SCOTUS, of course). So, if you hate the decision by a Santa Monica judge, and hate the review by the local appellate court, and hate the review by the California Sup. Ct...and then hate the later reviews by the 9th Circuit--and maybe even the Fed Sup Ct . . . well, most of us would recognize that it's a legally supportable ruling, even thought we disagree with it.
On the other hand; I think that most people see Gerrymandering as being done in the shadows. And each time it's done, the results always contain multiple examples of crazy geographic patterns. Even if those physical areas were created with the best of intentions, it still looks hinky. And, therefore, untrustworthy.
If I were to bump into Judge Sutton at a cocktail party and he were to tell me this thesis; I think I would politely listen, and then ask him, "Your honor. You sound very concerned that the average person may be finding your judicial review findings to be suspicious or untrustworthy. [1] Do you feel as though this perceived reaction is a commentary on your judicial writing/rulings, and/or on your courtroom style? [2] Is there something you can do better, or do differently, in the future, in order to effect more public trust in what you do from the bench?
Sutton's new book does sound interesting...I quite enjoy reading books that differ widely from my own perceptions. Assuming it hits normal libraries, I'll definitely give it a read.
Supposing that the Santa Monica judge, and on up, are relying on U. S. Supreme Court precedent? Then it's a question, not of multiple courts independently agreeing with each other, but of a single court, albeit the Supreme one, making its own decision.
But I'll agree that expressing concern that the public might think so-and-so generally means that the speaker thinks so-and-so and wants some reinforcement (real or not) for his views.
COURTS & ELECTORAL DISTRICT MANIPULATION
It's a good way to raise the issue of the outsized role of the judiciary in the American political system, but:
1. It's novel and original to call this gerrymandering, so almost no one is actually framing it that way (at least not before hearing about this book), which is not a criticism of the work's merits.
2. Gerrymandering has a distinctively territorial dimension, going all the way back to the word origin. That's not true of the judicary (or any other branch) overstepping its traditional role, or expanding it, whether on its own inititiate or as a result of being pushed that way by the groups/forces that lost in the political arena and want to carry on the fight by other means, to channel Carl von Clausewitz.
Finally, from a Texas perspective, the judicial gerrymandering has a real-life dimension that is much more concrete than metaphorical. In the last regular legislative sessions (2021), an effort to gerrymander the 14 appellate districts to favor the party in power failed. The SCOTX is already "gerrymandered" by the Texas constitution in the sense of assuring complete control to the party in power (at the state level) because each of its 9 members is elected statewide, and therefore by the statewide majority: It's one-party rule of law, currently 100% GOP (flipped from all-DEMS some decades ago). And vacancies are also filled by the same majority party governor.
That ideological monoculture, and what flows from it, isn't descriptive of the intermediate level of the appellate judiciary, however. The 80 appellate justices and hundreds of trial-level judges are elected by the people of multi-county appellate districts and counties, respectively. In 2021, the GOP-controlled Texas Lege moved to consolidate the COA districts and create super-sized appellate courts and appellate districts that would favor Republicans, following the recently much-improved performance of Democrats in appellate races (most notably in 2018). It would have caused much disruption and would have made a mess of COA precedents and splits in appellate authority not yet resolved by the SCOTX.
For more on the topic of election-driven appellate membership change, see Moi, The Effect of the 2018 Elections on the Texas Courts of Appeals: Better Demographic Representation, Greater Partisan Balance, and More Complex Decision-Making Dynamics (December 17, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3505700
"I also appreciate that Sutton does not need to brag about the fact that he is a judge on the cover. His book stands on its own, without regard to his station."
Sorry, Professor, but this makes me think of this Dilbert cartoon:
https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-02-23
...which probably isn't the judge's fault, of course. It's the quality of the endorsements he gets.
Not an American, but didn’t Tocqueville say that “ There is hardly any political question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question. From that, the obligation that the parties find in their daily polemics to borrow ideas and language from the judicial system.” The idea of the courts having “too much” power and people’s awareness of that being a way to exercise political power isn’t exactly novel.
"Not an American"
Don't sweat it, Tocqueville wasn't either.
It's an unfortunate accident. Could happen to anyone.
Wait, was it you or the Toquemeister who wasn't an American?
On Continuation of Politics by Other Means
Re: "not an American"
Nor was Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz. And whether he was German is arguably debatable too. Where have all the Prussians gone? Prussia itself?
More importantly: Why would the nationality of the speaker be relevant to the strenght of the argument ? (except perhaps for sourceing and explaining the comparative insights alien thinkers, traverlers, or trans-atlantic or trans-historic doers might offer, assuming arguendo anyone cares).
In this instance it’s relevant because Judge Sutton is talking about the American perceptions of the courts. Tocqueville is not American obviously, but was a keen observer, and showed that this is not a new thought.
Fair enough, that is an awkward construction. But if you’re genuinely wondering…I’ll keep you guessing.
Look, I don't mind so long as it's one of those countries I can spell.
GOOD: Chad
BAD: Kyrgyzstan
If "Americans" are so enraged by this "gerrymandering", but which the learned judge clearly means liberal legislating from the bench, is so terrible, why has the Republican presidential candidate received more votes than his Democratic opponent precisely one once in the past eight elections? The Republicans have frequently won more votes, overall, in the House elections, but never in the Senate throughout the 21st century. This is the real gerrymandering.
What are you talking about?
Democrats have only won a majority of the "popular vote" in 3 of the last 11 elections. Republicans have won it in 4 of those, so obviously it's the Democrats that are in the wrong.
Of course, since there is no such thing as a national popular vote, but instead 51 elections, any claims regarding it are irrelevant.
Could someone link to that Eastman-Blackman-Tillman memo that explains how former Pres. Trump can still pardon Steve Bannon for conduct that occurred while Trump was in office?
Thanks.
Don't give them ideas.
I never thought before of calling overreach by the federal courts "gerrymandering", but it does make some sense. We dislike gerrymandering of legislative districts because it shifts political power away from "us" (the presumed majority in the State or County) to "them". Judicial overreach shifts political power from the "people", the national or state "us", to federal judges, particularly federal appellate judges, but as time goes on district court judges, too. If you think that federal judges are "like" "the People", you haven't met many federal judges.
Think about the hottest, most intractable political dispute of the last half century -- abortion. Seven justices decided that a pregnant woman had an almost-unlimited right to "terminate her pregnancy". At the time, abortion was legally limited or prohibited in (almost?) all States. Constitutionalizing the issue gave a tiny minority of Americans (7 "old men") power to overide the opinions of the majority of 210 million people. That's a heck of a gerrymander!
I was part of the team that countered the hostile lobbying effort against Judge Sutton's nomination. I had the good luck to see him argue a case in the US Supreme Court against Richard Cordray (two former Ohio Solicitor Generals going toe to tie). I see him every so often around Columbus. The last time I saw him he was walking out of the Giant Eagle Market District in Bexley. You could not ask for a nicer man.
States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/21/27/902127b12d7a7d30b6a4bd35f4ab64c0.jpg
How do I know Judge Sutton is helping out in the laboratories of democracy? Just call it a hunch.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_BfVT7u-Toc/UZyxlbeopYI/AAAAAAAAAQA/NsS4pJLsmi0/s1600/87e155e061309e193bf1cfac7a7d98ca5e0f583_r.jpg
Of course, there was one Founding Father who was personally familiar with laboratories:
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/franklin-in-his-laboratory-science-photo-library.jpg
But there's no evidence he experimented on human beings. At least not living ones.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/30448/time-they-found-those-bodies-ben-franklins-basement
Hmmm. If one considers gerrymandering and judicial review to be equals (in the sense of being fair), then how can I
logically decide one is fair and good, while the other is not? I guess that mental hat trick can only be performed by a mind capable of holding two diametrically opposed beliefs at the same time. That sounds familiar about right thinking people. However, the plain and simple truth is that gerrymandering is a form of cheating, while judicial review is embodied in the constitution as a check and balance to misanthropic politicians and law professors.
However, the plain and simple truth is that gerrymandering is a form of cheating, while judicial review is embodied in the constitution as a check and balance to misanthropic politicians and law professors.
I think this is a confusion of "fruit" and "apples."
Drawing congressional districts for elections ("fruit") is a proper and necessary legislative function. Gerrymandering is a particular type of district-drawing ("apple"), which is regarded as cheatin'.
Judicial review ("fruit") is a proper and necessary judicial function. Judicial review as currently practised by the federal judiciary and constituting mere politicking from the bench, draped in threadbare shreds of sophistry is a particular type of judicial review ("apple"), which is regarded as cheatin'.
That it is possible to draw districts fairly and to do judicial review honestly is by the by. It is not a fair comparison to compare the pure and aethereal principle of judicial review ("fruit") with the grubby particularity of gerrymandering ("apple").
You should compare fruit - judicial review the concept v, drawing districts the concept. Or you should compare apples - judging a la Reinhardt v. gerrymandering.
Rotten apples might be more suitable. Degeneration of the purity of the concept.
It is not clear what point Prof. Blackman is trying to make in this post as his side as exemplified by his later post of the Federalist Society makes clear that it is his side that is trying the hardest to achieve the result that the book seems to condemn.
" Sad to acknowledge, the typical American, I fear, has come to think of judicial interpretations of our constitutions as another form of gerrymandering— another way, perhaps the most extreme way, for one group or another to get what they want at the expense of their political opponents— and at the expense of large swaths of the American people."
Yes, all side engage in attempting to pack courts with those Justices and Judges whom they think share their political positions, but looking at the conservatives and the Republican party's action shows that they are far more dedicated to doing so than others. Were they even slightly partisan neither Gorsuch nor Barrett would be on the Court. The current 6 to 3 conservative majority on the Court is not random chance, it is the very gerrymandering of the Court that the book decries.