The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My Forthcoming Article on "The Case for Expanding the Anticanon of Constitutional Law"
It argues for increasing the number of cases in the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" and proposes three worthy additions.

Earlier today, I posted to SSRN my forthcoming article on "The Case for Expanding the Anticanon of Constitutional Law," part of a symposium published by the Wisconsin Law Review. Here's the abstract:
The "anticanon" of constitutional law is an underappreciated constraint on judicial discretion. Some past decisions are so reviled that no judge can issue analogous rulings today, without suffering massive damage to his or her reputation. This article argues for expanding the anti-canon, and proposes three worthy new candidates: The Chinese Exclusion Case, Euclid v. Ambler Realty, and Berman v. Parker. The three rulings all share in spades the main characteristics of other anti-canonical decisions: terrible legal reasoning, enormously harmful real-world effects, and facilitating racial and ethnic discrimination and oppression.
Part I outlines the nature of the anticanon and how cases can "qualify" for it. Part II makes the case for adding new cases to the list. Finally, Part III explains why The Chinese Exclusion Case, Berman, and Euclid would be worthy additions to the Supreme Court's Hall of Shame.
As noted in the article, the main point is to spark a dialogue over the idea of making additions to the anticanon. Others may suggest rulings that make even more worthy additions than my three candidates. Still, I think the latter are at least tough to beat. The Chinese Exclusion Case, for example, combines terrible legal reasoning with more blatant racism than even Plessy v. Ferguson, and caused a comparable amount of harm (see Part III.A of the article for details). Berman and Euclid also combine awful reasoning with vast harm inflicted on millions of people, combined with facilitating large-scale racial exclusion and what James Baldwin called "Negro removal" (see Parts III.B-C).
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
Link?
How the hell does Slaughterhouse not make the anti-cannon list? The Court deliberately set out to render the 14th amendment moot!
Buck v Bell? That does not make the Hall of Shame? Really?
Buck v. Bell is still good law. The current SCOTUS is on board with the idea of a state regulating who does or does not reproduce. I am surprised that Justice Alito did not cite Buck for that proposition in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun cited Buck as authority for a state's right to ban post-viability abortions.
not guilty, I guess I got hung up on, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough". I remember reading that from the decision and saying...whoa. Forced sterilization? Yikes.
NG,
Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think Buck v Bell, and forced sterilization, is "good law"
Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough (HT O.W. Holmes Jr.)
"Perhaps you can elaborate on why you think Buck v Bell, and forced sterilization, is 'good law'”
It is good law in the sense that it has never been overruled, and it therefore remains binding precedent.
Much "good law" is morally abhorrent. The 1942 decision of Korematsu v. United States remained good law until it was overruled in 2018. And the reasoning of Buck v. Bell that permits a state to make reproductive decisions for its inhabitants lives in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). Consider this language from Dobbs:
[Citations omitted.]
Suppose a state enacted a law requiring that every female under the age of twenty-one who becomes pregnant (like Carrie Buck back in the day) must abort the embryo/fetus. (I realize that such a measure is unlikely to be enacted, but humor me. It's called a hypothetical for a reason.) That law would be entitled to a strong presumption of constitutional validity, and it could easily withstand rational basis review.
I'm sorry, what?
You believe a law that MANDATED abortion for all women who are under the age of 21 and got pregnant would be "entitled to a strong presumption of constitutional validity, and it could easily withstand rational basis review"
First...No. Such a law would be struck down by every judge in the US and be blown apart under any basis for review.
Second, the fact you think as you do is frightening.
What I think simply doesn't matter. I posited a hypothetical regulation of abortion by a state government. I am merely pointing out the upshot of Justice Alito's dangerous reasoning in Dobbs. The “strong presumption of validity” language is that of Justice Alito, quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993) (involving involuntary commitment of mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals -- a severe restriction of physical liberty).
The restriction upon personal liberty and individual autonomy posited in my hypothetical is less intrusive than that upheld in Buck v. Bell nearly a century ago. A female subject to forced abortion at a young age would still be able to bear children later in life, unlike Miss Buck. A state could rationalize such a restriction by claiming, for example, that young mothers and their children are more likely than older mothers to depend on public assistance. That is a sufficient justification to survive rational basis review.
"That is a sufficient justification to survive rational basis review."
No. It is not. Not in this case, for nationwide mandated abortion.
Is Shelby County v. Holder on the anticanon list? If not, it should be.
Why? What exactly is poor about the reasoning?
The court didn't rule like he wanted.
Basically. The logic of Shelby was extremely sound. The Voting Rights Act was working off data more than 50 years old, to fix a problem that no longer existed. It was also incredibly invasive, for what it was. Democrats had full control of Congress, if they wanted to update the provisions. They didn't.
All the fear mongering about sudden new Jim Crow laws, and suppression of the African American vote once it was struck down...haven't happened.
Basically. The logic of Shelby was extremely sound. The Voting Rights Act was working off data more than 50 years old,
Guess who gets to make that decision, chief?
The Supreme Court, deciding that punishing people for actions taken by others when the majority of the population being punished wasn't even alive is unconstitutional?
All three are good law today. The US Constitution simply doesn’t force Professor Somin’s personal policy preferences down other people’s throats. The Constitution protects Americans’ collective freedom of choice regarding whom to permit into the national family. It permits localities to regulate land use. And it permits legislatures to determine what constitutes a public use within wide use.
Lochner was right. Wickard v. Filburn, otoh, should be part of the anti-canon. (And restricting the fed's ability to regulate to actual interstate economic activity would be an unqualified good).
I suspect the ‘anti-canon’ doesn’t so much represent egregiously wrong decisions, as it does decisions the legal establishment really does NOT want to have to confront the reasoning of.
Sure, being egregiously wrong can produce that reluctance. (Dred Scott, say.) So can being right in a cause that’s unpopular. (Lochner) But being egregiously wrong in a ‘good’ cause, (Wickard) or where the mistake undergirds inconveniently too much precedent, (Slaughterhouse) can keep you off the list.
So the anticanon in is not about being wrong. Just being awkward to discuss.
That would be my take.
What difference does it make outside academia whether a case is part of the "anti-canon?"
Since you didn’t include a link to your article, here.
I would think IJ’s “dirty dozen” is a better candidate for an anti-canon. Especially Wickard v. Filburn. Roe might also qualify.
Shouldn’t you focus on overruling them first?
"The “anti-canon” of constitutional law is an underappreciated constraint on judicial discretion. Some past decisions are so reviled that no judge can issue analogous rulings today, without suffering massive damage to his or her reputation."
I think the idea is to make them so politically toxic you don't need to overrule them formally. To be fair, there are plenty in the ....canonical anti-cannon that were never formally overruled.
"….canonical anti-cannon that were never formally overruled."
Shouldn't that be "anti-canonical anti-cannon"? 🙂
Not sure what an anti-cannon is. I know what an anti-aircraft cannon is. So maybe it's an anti-canon cannon?
"Not sure what an anti-cannon is."
A long tube that sucks in large ballistic projectiles. 🙂
"I think the idea is to make them so politically toxic you don’t need to overrule them formally."
So, to win the argument without having to even HAVE an argument? (That you might not win...) I'd buy that, except that some of them haven't been informally overruled, either.
More of a "we don't talk about" list, than a "you automatically lose by mentioning" list.
"In the closest thing we have to a canonical article about the anticanon, Professor Jamal Greene identifies:
Dred Scott v. Sandford,
Plessy v. Ferguson,
Lochner v. New York, and Korematsu v. United States
as the most widely recognized “anticanonical” rulings.
A few other cases have achieved almost comparable levels of opprobrium. Buck v. Bell, upholding the constitutionality mandatory sterilization of the mentally ill, is a plausible example."
Don't worry Buck v. Bell anti-fans, it's in there!
"Historical accident and the needs of legal elites surely play a key role in the way that precedents are viewed. For example, my George Mason University colleague David Bernstein has persuasively argued that Lochner v. New York does not deserve most of its bad reputation, which is primarily a matter of the case’s treatment by later judges and legal commentators, rather than an objective assessment of how bad it was at the time"
Nonetheless, anticanonical cases tend to have common features, at least in the way they are perceived. Specifically, the four anticanonical cases are generally understood to feature a combination of terrible legal reasoning, horrific real-world consequences, and (with the possible exception of Lochner) promotion of racial discrimination and oppression."
Lochner's reasoning and real world consequences were just fine. The existence of economic rights is just massively inconvenient to thoroughgoing statists. By the time Adkins came along, laissez faire economics had been rejected by governing elites in favor of disastrous central planning, and economic rights make central planning kind of hard to attempt.
In Somin's argument for inclusion in the anti-cannon of The Chinese Exclusion Case, which stated that the federal government had a general power to exclude immigrants, he claims the Court "ignored the insistence of leading Founding Fathers, such as James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") and Thomas Jefferson, that no such power was ever granted to the federal government." And, "the 1889 Court did not even attempt to address Madison's point." But, as is clearly indicated by the Reporter, at page 583 of the decision, counsel for appellant cited the very same Madison and Jefferson sources that Somin claims the Court ignored. The final paragraph of Field's opinion opens with, "During the argument reference was made by counsel to the alien law of June 25, 1798, and to opinions expressed at the time by men of great ability and learning against is constitutionality. We do not attach importance to those opinions in their bearing upon this case. ... The act was passed during a period of great political excitement, and it was attacked and defended with great zeal and ability" (p. 610-11). So the arguments of Madison and Jefferson against the Alien and Sedition Act weren't "ignored", they were presented to the Court by the appellant, in support of his position, and all 8 Justices deemed them to be irrelevant to the case.
Kelo v. City of New London?
I also was shocked at Kelo's omission. (Kelo also holds the distinction of being almost universally reviled from the day the decision was issued. And because said contempt came--and still comes--from across the political and ideological spectrum.)
Overruling Berman would restrict eminent domain even more than overruling Kelo, which is presumably why Prof. Somin made that choice.
Good point. Thanks.
Roe should definitely be in the Anticanon.
And I’m not talking about whether abortion should be legal or not, since I don’t support laws against abortion, at least during the 1st trimester.
I’m talking about Roe’s mismash of medical lore, policy objectives, unenumerated rights, and disregard of original intent, to carve out a new right on the courts say so to trump an emerging political debate which was necessary to democratically resolve the conflict.
“I think it should be a right” is hardly a legal argument.
But it is telling that those who insist there is no such thing as a “natural right” think the right to abortion is a natural right.
*clap clap*
The only "natural rights" they believe in are the pelvic rights.
Roe had some of the worst legal reasoning in a case out there, with the judges making up a new policy out of whole cloth. Even those people who support Roe say the legal reasoning is a nightmare.
Bad reasoning is only one of the elements of the anti-cannon.
Roe's reasoning is no worse than the average Kennedy decision. Muddy, but hardly incoherent or departing from the line of precedent.
Pretending it's extra-double bad is common for non-lawyers who have not read a lot of opinions, and comes from trying to use Ginsberg's wish it was based on EPC rather than SDP as some kind of admission against interest.
I can't gainsay you your opinion, but I don't find it well supported having read the case myself.
Kennedy's decisions are awful because he's of Irish Catholic descent and was probably drunk when he wrote them.
Bush v. Gore. In fact its declared itself to be anti-canon — “don’t ever cite this case!”
What’s your pincite for that quote?
Bush v Gore was very circumstantial, so I don't see the problem, but that doesn't make it "anti-canon". I do see how people are upset about the 5-4 order to stop any further recounts (I just disagree with it), but the 7-2 ruling against selective hand recounts was a very solid ruling.
The partisans mad about the case don't like to talk about that part: There was a VERY strong majority on the Court that what the Florida supreme court was doing was legally improper, the only argument was over remedy; 2 of the Justices thought there was still time to re-do the recount under legally defensible rules.
Yep.
Two things bothered ME about Bush v Gore:
1) The Court kind of skated around the real problem, which is that the state supreme court was wrong to grant the recount in the first place, since recounts after the challenge period were very clearly discretionary on the part of the state SOS. Never mind the [lack of] standards for the recount, that was the big issue.
2) Resolving controversies about EC votes is actually not a judicial responsibility, it's a Congressional responsibility. The state was already preparing to send to Congress the correct slate of electors per the original certified vote, and beginning proceedings to impeach themselves some supreme court justices. Congress could have sorted out which of the redundant slates to count. In the end, not everything is the judiciary's job.
I can understand the urge to say, "Judges created this problem, judges need to fix it.", but, no. Judges needed to understand when the Constitution gave somebody else responsibility.
1) Yes, I do know that the federal courts ordinarily take state courts' rulings on the meaning of state law as authoritative, so no matter how obvious it was that the state supreme court was actually ignoring the state law, the Supreme Court wasn't going to admit that.
This is a problem where state courts start messing with state administration of federal elections. You get legal errors that can't be corrected.
This is also true of every single decision upholding Affirmative Action. Let's add them to the "anticanon"!
The Constitution assumes a moral and non-insane people. We no longer have that.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/15/us/wellesley-college-transgender-nonbinary-admissions-vote-reaj/index.html
We still have that, they're just not the people running things anymore.
Aw, good for them.
If there is anything these disaffected right-wing law professors and their bigoted, downscale fans can't stand, it's modern America and all of this damned progress.
Letting perverted groomers like yourself into the women's bathroom is not progress.
You know the worst thing about the "Chinese Exclusion Case"??
that its called the "Chinese Exclusion Case"
we don't call "Roe" the "Killing Babies Case" it's "Roe"
well the "Chinese Exclusion Case" should be known as
"Ping"
Frank "What came first, Ping or Pong?"
That's partly because Roe isn't about killing babies, but about abortion.
You say tomato, I say tomahto. It's six of one, a half dozen of the other, abortion isn't always just about killing the baby, but sometimes that's the entire point of it, when it occurs post viability.
Still, he's right: Why isn't the "Chinese Exclusion Case" called "Ping"?
What I love about the Medical "Literature" instead of 500 pages not explaining why the Government can give your House to a private company, just the facts Ma'am.
Roughly a million abortions are performed each year in the United States alone (CDC 2015). This number may be underestimated since the reporting of abortions is not mandatory in the USA.
Although deemed safe, therapeutic abortions, as well as spontaneous miscarriages, can lead to a variety of complications. Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection, and post-anesthesia complications. Others are major, including uterine atony and subsequent hemorrhage, uterine perforation, injuries to adjacent organs (bladder or bowels), cervical laceration, failed abortion, septic abortion, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The total abortion-related complication rate of all sources of care including emergency departments and the original abortion facility is estimated to be about 2%. The incidence of abortion-related emergency department visits within six weeks of the initial abortion procedure is about 40%.
You're turning this into an Abbott and Costello routine
Anticanon is a great coinage. What's the Western Anticanon? Pornography? Or is that just the Hidden Canon? Mein Kampf? The Turner Diaries? Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion? The Malleus Maleficarum? I'm sure a case could be made for Das Kapital, but there's nothing intrinsically evil about the book itself, for all the evil it inspired. You could make a similar case for the Bible. Can something be both canon and anticanon? Any other examples?
Perhaps a bit hypocritical, since I'm prone to this error, too, but:
Cannon: Goes boom.
Canon: Why the cannon got deployed.
Where I grew up a Canon was a kind of priest.
Really? In the RCC, it refers to church doctrine. I think that's the sense used here.
Yup. Sort of head priest in the parish, I think. And of course to be canonised does not mean being shot out of the western canon.
That latter is actually consistent with the RCC understanding of the word; When a saint is "canonized", it becomes church doctrine that they were a saint. It's actually their status as a saint that's made canon, not them.
Well it's also a title for a priest or a layman. What exactly it pertains to is a little hard to fathom, it's fairly steeped in liturgical history.
Interesting stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_ensemble