Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:26:52.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reinvention of American legal realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Neil Duxbury
Neil Duxbury*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While much has been written about American legal realism, the nature of its decline is comparably less carefully documented. Jurisprudential lore has it that ‘we are all realists now’. Although it is far from clear who ‘we’ might be, the statement is commonly taken to mean at least three things: that academic and practising lawyers alike have heard and heeded the message that law is not a certain system of rules; that legal doctrine is nowadays conceived in the context of the wider legal process; and that the legal process is nowadays understood to be part of the wider social system. The supposition, in essence, is that modern lawyers think like realists, even if they do not commonly consider themselves to be realists. While the weaker ideas and arguments developed by so-called realists have been discarded, the better ones have been absorbed into modern legal thought.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , July 1992 , pp. 137 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Whether, for example, British lawyers have assimilated the messages of legal realism the same manner as have their North American counterparts is debatable. See Cotterrell, , The Politics of Jurisprudence: A Critical Introduction to Legal Philosophy (London, Butterworths, 1989) 214 Google Scholar.

2. See Cotterrell, , op cit, pp 213-14Google Scholar; Twining, William, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (rev edn, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1985) 382 Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of the that we are all realists now, cf Singer, Joseph W., ‘Legal Realism Now’ (1988) 76 California L Rev 465–544 at 503–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. See, for example, Twining, loc cit.

4. For an extreme illustration of this point, see Riddall, J.C., Jurisprudence (London, Butterworths, 1991) 164 Google Scholar.

5. See, for example, Note [Debra Livingston], “Round and ‘Round the Bramble Bush: From Legal Realism to Critical Legal Scholarship’ (1982) 95 Harvard L Rev 1669-1690; Tushnet, Mark, ‘Critical Legal Studies: An Introduction to its Origins and Underpinnings’ (1986) 36 Jnl Leg Educ 505–517 Google Scholar. Compare, however, White, G. Edward, ‘The Inevitability of Critical Legal Studies’ (1984) 36 Stanford L Rev 649–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘From Realism to Critical Legal Studies: A Truncated Intellectual History’ (1986) 40 Southwestern LJ 819-843.”

6. See Fraser, David, ‘What a Long, Strange Trip it's Been: Deconstructing Law from Legal Realism to Critical Legal Studies’ (1988-89) 5 Australian Jnl of Law and Society 35–43 at 38Google Scholar.

7. See, for example, Carrington, Paul D., ‘Of Law and the River’ (1984) 34 Jnl Leg Educ 222–228 at 227Google Scholar; Fiss, Owen M., ‘The Death of the Law’ (1986) 72 Cornell L Rev 1–16 at 9-14Google Scholar; Fried, Charles, ‘Jurisprudential Responses to Legal Realism’ (1988) 73 Cornell L Rev 331–334 at 333Google Scholar.

8. The proliferation of legal studies of the ‘law in context’ variety is frequently cited by British authors as evidence of the legacy of legal realism. See, for example, Freeman, M.D.A. and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence (5th edn, London, Stevens & Sons, 1985) 701 Google Scholar, fn 35.

9. A good, recent example of this is Posner, Richard A., The Problems of Jurisprudence (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

10. See, for example, Freeman, and Lloyd, , supra, n 8, pp 701-09Google Scholar; Dias, R.W.M., Jurisprudence (5th edn, London, Buttenvorths, 1985) 459–61Google Scholar.

11. See Ackerman, Bruce A., Reconstructing American Law (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1984) 622 Google Scholar; Rumble, Wilfrid E. Jr, American Legal Realism: Skepticism, Reform, und the Judicial Process (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1968) 238 Google Scholar.

12. See, for example, Pound, Roscoe, ‘Fifty Years of Jurisprudence’ (1937) 50 Harvard L Rev 557–582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; (1938) 51 Harvard L Rev 444-472, 777-812 at pt III, pp 790–92.

13. See Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Low (Oxford, Clarendon, 1961) 132-44Google Scholar. Hart cites Karl Llewellyn and Jerome Frank as rule sceptics (ibid, p 250), though his argument seems to be directed at Frank in particular. In truth, Llewellyn was not a rule sceptic, except in so far as he was suspicious of particular textbook formulations of rules and principles. See Twining, , supra, n 2, p 32, 255, 408Google Scholar.

14. See MacCormick, Neil, H.L.A. Hurf (London, Arnold, 1981) 109 Google Scholar.

15. Hart, , supra n 13, p 250 Google Scholar.

16. On Dickinson, see Haskins, George L., ‘John Dickinson, 1894-1952’ (1952) 101 U Pennsylvania L Rev 1–25 Google Scholar; Chase, William C., The American Low School and the Rise of Administrative Government (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1982) 171 Google Scholar.

17. Dickinson, John, ‘Legal Rules: Their Function in the Process of Decision’ (1931) 79 U Pennsylvania L Rev 833–868 at 835Google Scholar.

18. Op cit, pp 846–47.

19. Op cit, p 847.

20. Op cit, p 849; and see further Dickinson, John, ‘Legal Rules: Their Application and Elaboration’ (1931) 79 U Pennsylvania L Rev 1052–1096 at 1076–85Google Scholar.

21. Dickinson, , supra, n 17, p 857 Google Scholar. It is clear throughout Dickinson's writings that Jerome Frank is, for him, the exemplary rule sceptic.

22. See op cit, p 836; and also Savarese, Ralph J., ‘American Legal Realism’ (1965) 3 Houston L Rev 180–200 at 181Google Scholar.

23. Dickinson, , op cit, p 859 Google Scholar; and cf also Kantorowicz, Hermann, ‘Some Rationalism about Realism’ (1934) 43 Yale LJ 1240–1253 at 1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. Dickinson, , op cit, p 860.Google Scholar

25. Op cit, pp 860–61.

26. Op cit, p 861.

27. Op cit, p 864; and cf also Golding, Martin P., ‘Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy in Twentieth-Century America - Major Themes and Developments’ (1986) 36 Jnl Leg Educ 441–480 at 461–62Google Scholar.

28. Dickinson, , op cit, p 838 Google Scholar.

29. Op cit, p 839.

30. Op cit, pp 843-44.

31. Op cit, p 844.

32. Frank, Jerome, Law and the Modern Mind (Gloucester, Mass, Peter Smith, 1970; orig publ 1930) 62–74, 91-99Google Scholar.

33. Dickinson, , supra n 17, p 842 Google Scholar.

34. Loc cit; and cf further Tarello, Giovanni, Il reulismo giuridico Amricano (Milan, Giuffrè, 1962) 231–32Google Scholar.

35. Dickinson, , op cit, p 846 Google Scholar.

36. Loc cit.

37. See Frank, Jerome, ‘Why Not a Clinical Lawyer School?’ (1933) 81 U Pennsylvania L Rev 907–923 Google Scholar; ‘Cardozo and the Upper Court Myth’ (1948) 13 Law and Contemporary Problems 369-390.

38. See Llewellyn, Karl N., The Case Law System in America (Gewirtz, P. ed, Eng tr M. Ansaldi. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1989; orig German publication, 1933) 80 Google Scholar; The Common Low Tradition: Deciding Appeals (Boston, Little, Brown & Co, 1960) 179; Twining, , supra, n 2, pp 488-96Google Scholar; and cf Summers, Robert S., Instrumentalism and American legal Theory (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1982) 161–62Google Scholar.

39. Compare Dickinson, supra, n 17, passim and supra, n 20, passim with Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously (London, Duckworth, 1977) 14–80 Google ScholarPubMed.

40. See, for example, Frank, , supra, n 32, p 186 Google Scholar.

41. Dickinson, John, ‘John Dickinson’ in Julius Rosenthal Foundation, My Philosophy of Law: Credos of Sixteen American Scholars (Boston, Boston Law Book Co, 1941) 91–106 Google Scholar at 98.

42. Pound, Roscoe, ‘The Future of Law’ (1937) 47 Yale LJ 1–13 at 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Pound, Roscoe, ‘The Recrudescence of Absolutism’ (1939) 47 Sewanee Rev 18–28 Google Scholar at 22; also supra, n 12, pt III, p 800.

44. Pound, Roscoe, ‘Individualization of Justice’ (1938) 7 Fordham L Rev 153–166 at 166Google Scholar.

45. See Franklin, Mitchell, ‘Law, Morals and Social Life’ (1957) 31 Tulane L Rev 465–478 at 465–71Google Scholar.

46. Robinson, Edward S., Law and the Lawyers (New York, Macmillan, 1935) 3–19 Google Scholar.

47. op cit, p 46.

48. Op cit, p 225; and cf also Purcell, Edward A. Jr, ‘American Jurisprudence Between the Wars: Legal Realism and the Crisis of Democratic Theory’ (1969) 75 American Historical Rev 424–445 at 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Robinson, Edward S., ‘Law - An Unscientific Science’ (1934) 44 Yale LJ 255–267 at 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50. Mechem, Philip, ‘The Jurisprudence of Despair’ (1936) 21 Iowa L Rev 669–692 at 692Google Scholar.

51. Palmer, Ben W., ‘The Natural Law and Pragmatism’ (1947-48) 23 Notre Dame Lawyer 313–341 at 336Google Scholar.

54. Arnold, Thurman W., The Symbols of Government (New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962 Google Scholar; orig publ 1935) 224–25.

53. Op cit, p 225.

54. See, for example, Mechem, , supra, n 50, pp 686–92Google Scholar; Morris R. Cohen, review of Arnold, T.W., The Symbols of Government (1936) 31 Illinois L Rev 411–418 Google Scholar; and also Hollinger, David A., Morris R. Cohen and the Scientific Ideal (Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press, 1975) 190 Google Scholar.

55. See Ayer, Douglas, ‘In Quest of Efficiency: The Ideological Journey of Thurman Arnold in the Interwar Period’ (1971) 23 Stanford L Rev 1049–1086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and also Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘The Theory of Legal “Science”’ (1941) 20 N Carolina L Rev 1–23 Google Scholar at 8, fn 7c.

56. Beutel, Frederick K., ‘Some Implications of Experimental Jurisprudence’ (1934) 48 Harvard L Rev 169–197 at 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Frank, Jerome, ‘Experimental Jurisprudence and the New Deal’ (1934) 78 Congressional Record 12412–12414 Google Scholar; Vacca, Roberto, Il diritto sperimentale (Turin, Fratelli Bocca, 1923)Google Scholar.

58. Beutel, , supra, n 56, p 179 Google Scholar.

59. Op cit, p 189.

60. Op cit, p 194.

61. Op cit, pp 195–96; and cf also Beutel, Frederick K., ‘An Outline of the Nature and Methods of Experimental Jurisprudence’ (1951) 51 Columbia L Rev 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62. Beutel, , supra, n 56, p 196 Google Scholar.

63. Op cit, p 197.

64. op cit, p 19

65. It is ironic that Beutel cites as a blueprint for his experimental model the ill-fated Johns Hopkins empirical research project. See Beutel, , op cit, pp 193–94Google Scholar; and also Stevens, Robert, Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1950s to the 1980s (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1983) 140 Google Scholar.

66. See Herget, James E., American Jurisprudence, 1870-1970: A History (Houston, Rice University Press, 1990) 201–04Google Scholar.

67. See Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Principles or Facts?’ (1935) 4 Fordham L Rev 53–71 at 66–71Google ScholarPubMed.

68. Arnold, , supra, n 52, p 225.Google Scholar

69. Arnold, Thurman W., ‘The Folklore of Mr Hook - A Reply’ in Hook, Sydney, Reason, Social Myths, and Democracy (New York, Humanities Press, 1940) 51–56 at 53Google Scholar.

70. See Lasch, Christopher, The New Radicalism in America, 1889–1963: The Intellectual as a Social Type (New York, Norton, 1965) 290–307 Google Scholar.

71. See Pells, Richard H., The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age: American Intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s (New York, Harper & Row, 1985) 8–26 Google Scholar.

72. Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr, The Common Law (Boston, Little, Brown & Co, 1881) 1 Google Scholar.

73. Pound, Roscoe, ‘Law in Books and Law in Action’ (1910) 44 American L Rev 12–36.Google Scholar

74. Arnold, , supra, n 52, pp 49–50 Google Scholar.

75. Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘On What is Wrong With So-called Legal Education’ (1935) 35 Columbia L Rev 651–678 at 669CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76. Frank, ‘Why Not a Clinical Lawyer School?’supra, n 37, passim; ‘What Constitutes a Good Legal Education?’ (1933) 7 American Law School Rev 894–902; ‘A Plea for Lawyer Schools’ (1947) 56 Yale LJ 1303–1344, ‘A Disturbing Look at the Law Schools’ (1949) 2 Jnl Leg Educ 189–192.

77. Harris, Rufus C., ‘Idealism Emergent in Jurisprudence’ (1936) 10 Tulane L Rev 169–187 at 183Google Scholar.

78. Op cit, p 182.

79. Op cit, p 180.

80. See, in particular, Frank, , supra, n 32, p 112 Google Scholar; Hutcheson, Joseph C. Jr, ‘The Judgment Intuitive: The Function of the “Hunch” in Judicial Decision’ (1929) 14 Cornell LQ 274–288 Google Scholar.

81. Cohen, Morris R., ‘Justice Holmes and the Nature of Law’ (1931) 31 Columbia L Rev 352–367 at 366CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. See generally Kennedy, Walter B., ‘To “Hunch” or Not to “Hunch”’ (1933) 89 New York LJ 742–752.Google Scholar

83. For examples, see Adler, Mortimer J., ‘Legal Certainty’ (1931) 31 Columbia L Rev 91–108 Google Scholar; ‘Jerome Hall, ‘Nulla Poena Sine Lege’ (1937) 47 Yale LJ 165–193 at 190–91. In the same vein, see Brown, Philip M., ‘The Vitality of International Law’ (1945) 39 Am Jnl of International Law 533–534 at 534Google Scholar.

84. Llewellyn, Karl N., The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (New York, Oceana, 1951 Google Scholar; repr of orig student edn, 1930) 3. Llewellyn eventually retracted the remark: see Twining, , supra, n 2, p 149 Google Scholar.

85. Kantorowicz, , supra, n 23, p 1251.Google Scholar

86. Fuller, Lon L. and Perdue, William Jr, ‘The Reliance Interest in Contract Damages’ (1936–37) 46 Yale LJ 52–96, 373–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

87. Fuller, Lon L., Basic Contract Law (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 1947)Google Scholar; and see also Klare, Karl, ‘Contracts Jurisprudence and the First-Year Casebook’ (1979) 54 New York Univ L Rev 876–899 at 882–83.Google Scholar

88. Konefsky, Alfred S., Mensch, Elizabeth B. and Schlegel, John Henry, ‘In Memoriam: The Intellectual Legacy of Lon Fuller’ (1981) 30 Buffalo L Rev 263–264 at 263.Google Scholar

89. McDougal, Myres S., ‘Fuller v the American Legal Realists: An Intervention’ (1941) 50 Yale LJ 827–840 at 834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Op cit, p 839.

91. Op cit, pp 839–40.

92. Fuller, Lon L., ‘American Legal Realism’ (1934) 82 U Pennsylvania L Rev 429–462 at 443.Google Scholar

93. Op cit, p 429.

94. Op cit, p 430.

95. Op cit, p 438.

96. Fuller, Lon L., The Law in Quest of itself (Chicago, The Foundation Press, 1940) 53, 59.Google Scholar

97. op cit, p 59.

98. Fuller, , supra, n 92, p 447 Google Scholar; and see also supra, n 96, pp 64–65.

99. Fuller, , supra, n 92, p 443.Google Scholar

100. Op cit, pp 449–53.

101. Op cit, pp 455–56.

102. Written in collaboration with his research assistant, Gilbert Sussman. See Moore, Underhill and Sussman, Gilbert, ‘Legal and Institutional Methods Applied to the Debiting of Direct Discounts - I. Legal Method: Banker's Set-off’ (1931) 40 Yale LJ 381–400;Google Scholar. ‘II. Institutional Method,’ibid, pp 555–575; ‘III. The Connecticut Studies,’ibid, pp 752–778; ‘IV. The South Carolina and Pennsylvania Studies,’ibid, pp 928–953; ‘V. The New York Study,’ibid, pp 1055–1073; ‘VI. The Decisions, the Institutions, and the Degrees of Deviation,’ibid, pp 1219–1290.

103. Fuller, , supra, n 92, p 455 Google Scholar.

104. Op cit, p 456.

105. Op cit, p 458.

106. Schlegel, John Henry, ‘American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: The Singular Case of Underhill Moore’ (1980) 29 Buffalo L Rev 195–323 at 261.Google Scholar

107. See Fuller, , supra, n 92, p 448 Google Scholar; supra, n 96, pp 60–61.

108. See Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr, Collected Legal Papers (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Howe, 1920) 310.Google Scholar

109. See, for example, Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘Some Realism about Realism - Responding to Dean Pound’ (1931) 44 Harvard L Rev 1222–1264 at 1252–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

110. McDougal, , supra, n 89, p 834.Google Scholar

111. Op cit p 835.

112. See, for example, Rostow, Eugene V., ‘American Legal Realism and the Sense of the Profession’ (1962) 34 Rocky Mountain L Rev 123–149 at 132–33.Google Scholar

113. Llewellyn, , supra, n 109, p 1252.Google Scholar

114. Fuller, , supra, n 96, pp 61–62.Google Scholar

115. Op cit, p 61.

116. Fuller, , supra, n 92, p 448.Google Scholar

117. Llewellyn, supra, n 109, passim; responding to Roscoe Pound, ‘The Call for a Realist Jurisprudence’ (1931) 44 Harvard L Rev 697–711.

118. Myres S. McDougal, letter to author, 30 April 1990.

119. Fuller was born in 1902, McDougal in 1906.

120. See, for example, Bloustein, Edward J., ‘Logic and Legal Realism: The Realist as a Frustrated Idealist’ (1964) 50 Cornell LQ 24–33 at 24.Google Scholar

121. See Flaherty, David H., ‘Law and the Enforcement of Morals in Early America’ (1971) 5 Perspectives in American History 201–253.Google Scholar

122. Walter Nelles, review of Cohen, F.S., Ethical System and Legal Ideals (1933) 33 Columbia L Rev 763–768 at 767.Google Scholar

123. Op cit, p 768.

124. Moore, Underhill, ‘Rational Basis of Legal Institutions’ (1923) 23 Columbia L Rev 609–617 at 612CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further illustrations, see Purcell, Edward A. Jr, The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Nuturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1973) 91–92.Google Scholar

125. See Posner, , supra, n 9, p 26.Google Scholar

126. See generally Badger, Anthony J., The New Deal: The Depression Years, 1933–1940 (London, Macmillan, 1989) 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

127. Leuchtenburg, William E., Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 (New York, Harper & Row, 1963) 342.Google Scholar

128. Op cit, p 333.

129. Dickinson, John, ‘Legal Change and the Rule of Law’ (1940) 44 Dickinson L Rev 149–161 at 158–59Google Scholar; and see also his Administrative Justice and the Supremacy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1927) 235.

130. See Frank, Jerome, Save America First: How to Make Our Democracy Work (New York, Harper & Bros, 1938).Google Scholar

131. See Bloom, Allan, The Closing of the American Mind (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1987) 67.Google Scholar

132. For examples, see Fuller, Lon L., ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law - A Reply to Professor Hart’ (1958) 71 Harvard L Rev 630–672 at 648–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, ‘Legal Positivism and the Nuremberg Judgment’ (1948) 42 Am Jn1 of International Law 405–414 Google Scholar; and cf also Shklar, Judith N., Legalism: Law, Morals, and Political Trials (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1964) 154–78Google Scholar; Paulson, Stanley L., ‘Classical Legal Positivism at Nuremberg’ (1975) 4 Philosophy and Public Affairs 132–158 Google Scholar; Luban, David, ‘The Legacies of Nuremberg’ (1987) 54 Social Research 779–829.Google Scholar

133. For examples, see Hall, Jerome, Living Law of Democratic Society (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill, 1949)Google Scholar; Cahn, Edmond N., The Sense of Injustice: An Anthropocentric View of Law (New York, New York University Press, 1949)Google Scholar; Fuller, Lon L., The Morality of Law (rev edn, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1964)Google Scholar: Northrop, Filmer S.C., The Complexity of Legal and Ethical Experience: Studies in the Method of Normative Subjects (rev edn, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

134. See, in particular, Bodenheimer, Edgar, Jurisprudence: The Philosophy and Method of the Law (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1962) 133–34Google Scholar; Friedmann, Wolfgang, Legal Theory (5th edn, London, Stevens & Sons, 1967) 231–35Google Scholar. On émigré legal scholars in the United States, see Herget, , supra, n 66, pp 262–83Google Scholar; Gordon, Robert W., ‘Introduction: J. Willard Hurst and the Common Law Tradition in American Legal Historiography’ (1975) 10 Law and Society Rev 9–55 at 38, fn 85Google Scholar; and, more generally, cf Fleming, Donald and Bailyn, Bernard eds, The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960 (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

135. For a typical example of such encomium, see Aitchison, Clyde B., ‘Justice Holmes and the Development of Administrative Law’ (1933) 1 George Washington L Rev 165–171.Google Scholar

136. De Wolfe Howe, Mark, ‘The Positivism of Mr Justice Holmes’ (1951) 64 Harvard L Rev 529–546 at 529.Google Scholar

137. Persons, Stow, American Mind: A History of Ideas (New York, Holt & Co, 1958) 265.Google Scholar

138. See Dudziak, Mary L., ‘Oliver Wendell Holmes as a Eugenic Reformer: Rhetoric in the Writing of Constitutional Law’ (1986) 71 Iowa L Rev 833–867 at 836.Google Scholar

139. Buck v Bell 274 US 200 (1927). For discussions of this case, see Cynkar, Robert J., ‘ Buck v Bell: “Felt Necessities” v Fundamental Values?’ (1981) 81 Columbia L Rev 1418–1461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lombardo, Paul A., ‘Three Generations, No Imbeciles: New Light on Buck v Bell ’ (1985) 60 New York Univ L Rev 30–62.Google Scholar By the late 1920s, when Buck v Bell was decided, many American geneticists had repudiated eugenic policies owing both to advancements in biotechnology and also to the increasingly racist tone of the eugenics movement. See Ludmerer, Kenneth M., Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972) 121–24.Google Scholar

140. Buck v Bell, op cit, p 207.

141. Burgorf, Robert L. Jr and Burgdorf, Marcia Pearce, ‘The Wicked Witch is Almost Dead: Buck v Bell and the Sterilization of Handicapped Persons’ (1977) 50 Temple LQ 995–1034 at 996.Google Scholar

142. Novick, Sheldon M., Honorable Justice: The Life of Oliver Wendell Holmes (New York, Laurel, 1989) 352.Google Scholar

143. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr to Morris R. Cohen, 23 Nov 1919, in Cohen, Felix ed, ‘The Holmes-Cohen Correspondence’ (1948) 9 Jnl of the History of Ideas 3–52 at 17.Google ScholarPubMed

144. Holmes, , supra, n 72, p 44 Google Scholar.

145. Rogat, Yosal, ‘The Judge as Spectator’ (1964) 31 U Chicago L Rev 213–256 at 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

146. Kaplan, Benjamin, ‘Encounters With O.W. Holmes, Jr’ (1983) 96 Harvard L Rev 1828–1852 at 1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a more jaundiced view of Holmes' philosophy of life, see Gilmore, Grant, The Ages of American Law (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1977) 49–50.Google Scholar

147. Bode, Boyd H., ‘Justice Holmes on Natural Law and the Moral Ideal’ (1919) 29 Int Jnl of Ethics 397–404 at 397.Google Scholar

149. Fuller, , supra, n 96, p 63 Google Scholar.

148. Op cit, p 403.

150. See White, G. Edward, ‘The Rise and Fall of Justice Holmes’ (1971) 39 U Chicago L Rev 51–77 at 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

151. Simms, E.W., ‘A Dissent from Greatness’ (1942) 28 Virginia L Rev 467–487 at 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

152. Op cit, p 479.

153. Ford, John C., ‘The Fundamentals of Holmes' Juristic Philosophy’ (1942) 11 Fordham L Rev 255–278 at 258.Google Scholar

154. Gregg, Paul L., ‘The Pragmatism of Mr. Justice Holmes’ (1943) 31 Georgetown LJ 262–295 at 293.Google Scholar

155. See generally Blum, John M., V Was for Victory: Politics and American Culture During World War II (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1976).Google Scholar

156. See Gregg, , supra, n 14, p 294 Google Scholar: ‘If totalitarianism ever becomes the form of American government, its leaders, no doubt, will canonize as one of the patron saints Mr Justice Holmes. For his popularization of the pragmatic philosophy of law has done much to pave the way’.

157. Palmer, Ben W., ‘Hobbes, Holmes and Hitler’ (1945) 31 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 569–573 at 573Google Scholar. In essentially the same vein, see his ‘Defense against Leviathan’ (1946) 32 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 328–332, 360; ‘The Totalitarianism of Mr Justice Holmes: Another Chapter in the Controversy’ (1951) 37 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 809–811; and Ford, John C., ‘The Totalitarian Mr Justice Holmes’ (1944) 159 Catholic World 115–121.Google Scholar More generally, see Burton, David H., Political Ideals of Justice Holmes (Rutherford, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992) 105–111.Google Scholar

158. See Bernstein, Irving, ‘The Conservative Mr Justice Holmes’ (1950) 23 New England Quarterly 435–452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, Horace B., ‘The End of the Holmes Tradition’ (1950–51) 19 U Kansas City L Rev 53–65.Google Scholar

159. McKinnon, Harold R., ‘The Secret of Mr Justice Holmes: An Analysis’ (1950) 36 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 261–264 at 261Google Scholar. For examples of sympathetic assessments of Holmes from the 1940s, see Boorstin, Daniel J., ‘The Elusiveness of Mr Justice Holmes’ (1941) 14 New England Quarterly 478–487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lerner, Max ed, The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes : His Speeches, Essays, Letters and Judicial Opinions (Boston, Little, Brown & Co, 1943)Google Scholar; and Frankfurter, Felix, ‘Oliver Wendell Holmes’ (1944) 21 Dictionary of American Biography 417–427 Google Scholar.

160. Lucey, Francis E., ‘Holmes - Liberal - Humanitarian - Believer in Democracy?’ (1951) 39 Georgetown LJ 523–562 at 560.Google Scholar

161. Howe, , supra, n 36, p 530 Google Scholar.

162. See Fuller, , supra, n 96, pp 62–3, 117–18Google Scholar.

163. Howe, , supra, n 136, p 541 Google Scholar; and cf also Holmes, Oliver Wendell Jr, ‘The Path of the Law’ (1897) 10 Harvard L Rev 457–478 at 459Google Scholar: ‘The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life’.

164. Hart, Henry M. Jr, ‘Holmes' Positivism - An Addendum’ (1951) 64 Harvard L Rev 929–937 at 936CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also Howe, Mark DeWolfe, ‘Holmes' Positivism - A Brief Rejoinder’ (1951) 64 Harvard L Rev 937–939 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vetter, Jan, ‘The Evolution of Holmes, Holmes and Evolution’ (1984) 72 California L Rev 343–368 at 346–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

165. See, for example, Wyzanski, Charles Jr, ‘The Democracy of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ (1954) 7 Vanderbilt L Rev 311–324 at 319.Google Scholar

166. Rodell, Fred, ‘Justice Holmes and His Hecklers’ (1951) 60 Yale LJ 620–624 at 620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

167. Op cit, p 623.

168. Op cit, p 624.

169. See my ‘In the Twilight of Legal Realism: Fred Rodell and the Limits of Legal Critique’ (1991) 11 Oxf J Leg Studs 354–395 at 365–66.

170. See, for example, Cardozo, Benjamin N., ‘Mr Justice Holmes’ (1931) 44 Harvard L Rev 682–692 at 687Google Scholar; Frank, Jerome, ‘Mr Justice Holmes and Non-Euclidean Legal Thinking’ (1932) 17 Cornell LQ 568–603 at 570, fn 5Google Scholar; Frankfurter, Felix, Mr Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1938)Google Scholar.

171. See, for example, Rogat, , supra, n 145, p 226.Google Scholar

172. See Rogat, op cit, passim.

173. See White, , supra, n 150, p 74 Google ScholarPubMed; Vetter, , supra n 164, pp 349-51Google Scholar.

174. See, for example, Luce, Henry R., ‘Holmes Was Wrong’, Fortune, June 1951, p 85.Google Scholar

175. See generally Lewy, Guenter, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York, McGraw Hill, 1964)Google Scholar; Friedrich, Carl J. and Bnezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1956) 257–63.Google Scholar

176. von Hildebrand, Dietrich, ‘The Dethronement of Truth’ (1942) 18 Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 3–16 at 3, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

177. See, for example, Sternberg, William P., ‘Natural Law in American Jurisprudence’ (1938) 13 Notre Dame Lawyer 89–100 Google Scholar, Brown, Brendan F., ‘Natural Law and the Law-Making Function in American Jurisprudence’ (1939) 15 Notre Dame Lawyer 9–25 Google Scholar; Kreilkamp, Karl, The Metaphysical Foundations of Thomistic Jurisprudence (Washington DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1939)Google Scholar; Crane, Judson A., ‘Natural Law in the United States’ (1940) 15 Notre Dame Lawyer 195–205.Google Scholar

178. Kessler, Friedrich, ‘Natural Law, Justice and Democracy - Some Reflections on Three Types of Thinking About Law and Justice’ (1944) 19 Tulane L Rev 32–61 at 59.Google Scholar

179. Haines, Charles G., The Revival of Natural Law Concepts (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1930).Google Scholar

180. See, for example, Spooner, Lysander, Natural Law; or, the Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing that all Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation and a Crime (Boston, Williams & Co, 1882)Google ScholarPubMed; Smith, George H., Elements of Right and of the Law (San Francisco, Bancroft, 1886)Google Scholar; Campbell, Edward L., The Science of Law According to the American Theory of Government (Trenton, NJ, MacCrellish & Quigley, 1887)Google Scholar.

181. See Holaind, René I., Natural Law and Legal Practice (New York, Benziger Bros, 1899)Google Scholar; also Pattee, William S., The Essential Nature of Law; or, The Ethical Basis of Jurisprudence (Chicago, Callaghan & Co, 1909)Google Scholar.

182. See Rooney, Miriam T., Lawlessness, Law and Sanction (Washington DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1937)Google Scholar; and also Maritain, Jacques, The Rights of Man and Natural Law (Eng trans D. C. Anson, New York, Scribner's, 1943)Google Scholar; Man and the State (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1951); Rommen, Heinrich, The State in Catholic Thought: A Treatise in Political Philosophy (St Louis, Herder, 1945)Google Scholar; The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy (Eng trans T. R. Hanley, St Louis, Herder, 1947).

183. Manion, Clarence, ‘The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions’ (1949) 35 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 461–464, 529–530 at 461.Google Scholar

184. Op cit, p 530.

185. Loc cit.

186. Le Boutillier, Cornelia G., American Democracy and Natural Law (New York, Columbia University Press, 1950) 181.Google Scholar

187. Op cit, p 52.

188. Op cit, p 134.

189. Op cit, p 181.

190. See Palmer, Ben W., ‘Groping for a Legal Philosophy: Natural Law in a Creative and Dynamic Age’ (1949) 35 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 12–15 Google Scholar; Gerhart, Eugene C., American Liberty and ‘Natural Law’ (Boston, Beacon Press, 1953)Google Scholar; Barrett, Edward F., ‘The Natural Law and the Lawyer's Search for a Philosophy of Law’ (1955) 1 Catholic Lawyer 128–140.Google Scholar

191. See Purcell, , supra, n 48, pp 438–40Google Scholar.

192. Gannon, Robert I., ‘What Are we Really Fighting?’ (1942) 11 Fordham L Rev 249–254 at 252.Google Scholar

193. Brown, , supra, n 177, p 20 Google ScholarPubMed. On Gény, see Friedmann, , supra, n 134, pp 328–32Google Scholar.

194. Brown, Op cit, p 21 Google Scholar; and cf also Brown, Brendan F., ‘Jurisprudential Aims of Church Law Schools in the United States - A Survey’ (1938) 13 Notre Dame Lawyer 163–189 Google Scholar; ‘Catholic Education and Law’ in Deferrari, R. J. ed, Vital Problems of Catholic Education in the United States (Washington DC, Catholic University of America Press, 1939), 218–231.Google Scholar

195. Scanlan, Alfred L., ‘Natural Law and Notre Dame’ (1949) 1 Jnl Leg Educ 438.Google Scholar

196. See generally Herget, , supra, n 66, pp 237–38Google Scholar.

197. Miltner, Charles C., ‘Law and Morals’ (1934) 10 Notre Dame Lawyer 1–10 at 6.Google Scholar

198. Lucey, Francis E., ‘Jurisprudence and the Future Social Order (1941) 16 Social Science 211–217 at 213.Google Scholar

199. Manion, Clarence, ‘The American Metaphysics in Law’ (1942) 18 Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 126–134 at 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

200. de Sloovère, Frederick J., ‘Natural law and Current Sociological Jurisprudence’ (1941) 17 Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 137–142 at 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

201. Rooney, Miriam T., ‘Law and the New Logic’ (1940) 16 Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 192–222 at 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

202. Lucey, Francis E., ‘Natural Law and American Legal Realism: Their Respective Contributions to a Theory of Law in a Democratic Society’ (1942) 30 Georgetown LJ 493–533 at 523.Google Scholar

203. Manion, , supra, n 199, p 128 Google Scholar.

204. Kreilkamp, Karl, ‘Dean Pound and the End of Law’ (1940) 9 Fordham L Rev 196–232 at 212, 232Google Scholar. In a similar vein, see also his ‘Dean Pound and the Immutable Natural Law’ (1949) 18 Fordham L Rev 173–203.

205. Desvernine, Raoul E., ‘Philosophy and Order in Law’ (1941) 17 Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 135–137 at 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

206. Lucey, , supra, n 202, p 526 Google Scholar

207. Lucey, , supra, n 198, p 216.Google Scholar

208. Manion, , supra, n 199, p 133 Google Scholar.

209. Purcell, , supra, n 48, p 436 Google Scholar; and cf also Bechtler, Thomas W., ‘American Legal Realism Revaluated’ in Bechtler, T. W. ed, Law in a Social Context: Liber Amicorum Honouring Professor Lon L. Fuller (Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1978), 1–48 at 42–3.Google Scholar

210. See, for example, Lucey, , supra, n 202, p 533 Google Scholar: ‘Democracy verses the Absolute State means Natural Law verses Realism.’

211. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Pragmatism as a Philosophy of law’ (1925) 9 Marquette L Rev 63–77 at 65.Google Scholar

212. Op cit, p 72.

213. Op cit, p 74.

214. Op cit, p 76.

215. Walter B. Kennedy, ‘Men or Laws’ (1932) 2 Brooklyn L Rev 11–26 at 16.

216. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘A Review of Legal Realism’ (1940) 9 Fordham L Rev 362–374 at 363.Google Scholar

217. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Walter B. Kennedy’ in My Philosophy of Law, supra, n 41, pp 147–160 at 151–52.Google Scholar

218. Kennedy, , supra, n 216, p 373.Google Scholar

219. Walter B., Kennedy, ‘The Scientific Approach in Law’ (1936) 70 United States L Rev 75–83 at 75.Google Scholar

220. Walter B., Kennedy, ‘The New Deal in the Law’ (1934) 68 United States L Rev 533–539 at 538.Google Scholar

221. Op cit, p 535.

222. See, in particular, Oliphant, Herman, ‘A Return to Stare Decisis’ (1928) 14 Am Bar Assoc Jnl 71–76, 107, 159–162.Google Scholar

223. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Psychologism in the Law’ (1940) 29 Georgetown LJ 139–164 at 148.Google Scholar

224. Kennedy, , supra, n 216, p 366.Google Scholar According to Kennedy, , ‘scholasticism can safely meet realism on the issue of facts versus principles and come forth a victor’ (supra, n 21 7, p 158)Google Scholar.

225. See Eno, Lawrence R., ‘Price Movement and the Unstated Objections to the Defective Performance of Sales Contracts’ (1935) 44 Yale LJ 782–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

226. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Realism, What Next?’ (1938) 7 Fordham L Rev 203–215 Google Scholar; (1939) 8 Fordham L Rev 45–78 at pt II, p 53, 75.

227. See Eno, supra, n 225, p 782 n. ‘After I was finished with Llewellyn's courses, I became his research assistant in my final year in law school … He put his stamp on my mind… I don't think Llewellyn viewed me as a realist. I think Llewellyn regarded me as a student who had done a decent job and had some promise. The only one I knew in the 1930s who thought me a realist was Kennedy. I may say that when I saw Kennedy refer to me as a realist, I was neither surprised nor offended… I did not consider my article to be a realist article. Most of it was very traditional’. Lawrence R. Eno, letter to author, 3 Oct 1991.

228. See generally Moskowitz, David H., ‘The American Legal Realists and an Empirical Science of Law’ (1966) 11 Villanova L Rev 480–524.Google Scholar

229. Cohen, Felix S., ‘Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach’ (1935) 35 Columbia L Rev 809–849 at 842–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

230. See Cohen, Felix S., Ethical Systems and Legal Ideals: An Essay on the Foundations of Legal Criticism (New York, Falcon, 1933)Google Scholar; also ‘The Ethical Basis of Legal Criticism’ (1931) 41 Yale LJ 201–220.

231. Kennedy, , supra, n 219, p 77 Google Scholar.

232. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘Functional Nonsense and the Transcendental Approach’ (1936) 5 Fordham L Rev 272–300 at 300.Google Scholar

233. Cohen, Felix S., ‘Correspondence’ (1936) 5 Fordham L Rev 548–551.Google Scholar

234. Kennedy, Walter B., ‘More Functional Nonsense -A Reply to Felix S. Cohen’ (1937) 6 Fordham L Rev 75–89.Google Scholar

235. Cohen, Felix S., ‘Correspondence’ (1937) 6 Fordham L Rev 356 Google Scholar.

236. See Duxbury, , supra, n 169, p 364.Google Scholar

237. Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘One “Realist's” View of Natural Law for Judges’ (1939) 15 Notre Dame Lawyer 3–8 at 7–8.Google Scholar

238. Op cit, p 8.

239. Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘On Reading and Using the Newer Jurisprudence’ (1940) 40 Columbia L Rev 581–614 at 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

240. See Twining, , supra, n 2, pp 123–24, 423–24.Google Scholar

241. Llewellyn, Karl N., ‘The Normative, the Legal, and the Law-Jobs: The Problem of Juristic Method’ (1940) 49 Yale LJ 1355–1400 at 1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

242. See, in particular, Garlan, Edwin N., Legal Realism and Justice (New York, Columbia University Press, 1941)Google Scholar; Jones, Harry W., ‘Law and Morality in the Perspective of Legal Realism’ (1961) 61 Columbia L Rev 799–808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more recent analysis of legal realism vis-à-vis lawyers' ethics. cf Wilkins, David B., ‘Legal Realism for Lawyers’ (1990) 104 Harvard L Rev 468–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

243. Levi, Edward H., ‘The Natural Law, Precedent, and Thurman Arnold’ (1938) 24 Virginia L Rev 587–612 at 588CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and cf my ‘Some Radicalism about Realism? Thurman Arnold and the Politics of Modern Jurisprudence’ (1990) 10 Oxf J Leg Studs 11–41.

244. See Kessler, Friedrich, ‘Jerome N. Frank’ (1957) 2 Natural Law Forum 1–3 Google Scholar.

245. See Arnold, Thurman, ‘Judge Jerome Frank’ (1957) 24 U Chicago L Rev 633–642 at 634–35Google Scholar. Other realists, too, remained markedly suspicious of natural law doctrine, recognising in it a Langdellian-style fear of ‘the loss of support of fixed principles’. Cook, Walter Wheeler, ‘Walter Wheeler Cook’ in My Philosophy of Law, supra, n 412 pp 51–66 at p 64Google Scholar; and cf also Purcell, , supra, n 48, p 443 Google Scholar.

246. Frank, , supra, n 32, p xx.Google Scholar

247. See, for example, Barrett, Edward F., ‘Confession or Avoidance?– Reflections on Rereading Judge Frank's Law and the Modern Mind ’ (1949) 24 Notre Dame Lawyer 447–459 Google Scholar; Schuett, John T., ‘A Study of the Legal Philosophy of Jerome N. Frank’ (1957) 35 U Detroit LJ 20–69 at 40–41.Google Scholar

248. Frank, Jerome, ‘Some Reflections on Judge Learned Hand’ (1957) 24 U Chicago L Rev 666–705 at 704.Google Scholar

249. See Herget, , supra, n 66, pp 238–39.Google Scholar

250. See, for example, Lasswell, Harold D. and McDougal, Myres S., ‘Legal Education and Public Policy: Professional Training in the Public Interest’ (1943) 52 Yale LJ 203–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDougal, Myres S., ‘The Law School of the Future: From Legal Realism to Policy Science in the World Community’ (1947) 56 Yale LJ 1345–1355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

251. See White, G. Edward, ‘The Evolution of Reasoned Elaboration: Jurisprudential Criticism and Social Change’ (1973) 59 Virginia L Rev 279–302 at 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

252. On which efforts, see my ‘Robert Hale and the Economy of Legal Force’ (1990) 53 Mod L Rev 421–444.

253. See Duxbury, , supra, n 169, p 393 Google Scholar; and consider also Richard A. Posner, letter to author, 26 Sept 1991: ‘Perhaps reflecting my legal education, in which legal realism played no role … I see legal realism as minor variations on themes sounded by Holmes’.

254. See, for example, Klare, Karl E., ‘Judicial Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937–1941’ (1978) 62 Minnesota L Rev 265–339.Google Scholar

255. See, for example, Posner, , supra, n 9, pp 19–20 Google Scholar; Fried, , supra, n 7, p 333 Google Scholar.