Despite the notion's prominence, scholarship has yet to offer a viable account of the view that crimes constitute public wrongs. Despite numerous attempts, some scholars are now doubting whether a viable account is forthcoming whereas others are reeling back expectations for what the concept itself can offer. This article vindicates crime's public character while asserting the relevance of political theory in doing so. After critiquing prior attempts and clarifying expectations, the article offers a novel account, relying on both key doctrinal features and a deliberative democratic framework through which to interpret their public significance. In doing so, it demonstrates how this framework explains the public nature of censure, and ultimately argues that crimes are public wrongs not because such actions themselves necessarily wrong or harm the public, but instead because they are the type of wrong that the public has a stake in addressing. This gives rise to an understanding of sentencing as public decision-making within which citizens and their representatives decide how best to use public power to manage public interests.

Retributive restrictions are principles of justice according to which what a criminal deserves on account of his individual conduct and character restricts how states are morally permitted to treat him. The main arguments offered in defense of retributive restrictions involve thought experiments in which the state punishes the innocent, a practice known as telishment. In order to derive retributive restrictions from the wrongness of telishment, one must engage in moral argument from generalization. I show how generalization arguments of the same form can be used subversively to derive morally unacceptable conclusions from other scenarios in which the state intentionally inflicts undeserved coercion. For example, our considered moral convictions approve of punishment policies that inflict collateral damage, such as the ubiquitous policy of excluding the family members of inmates from prison facilities outside visiting hours. I present a generalization argument for the conclusion that these policies are seriously unjust. If we firmly believe that these policies are not unjust, then we should put less stock in generalization arguments. We should not use them to support retributive restrictions. This conclusion has broad implications for the theory and practice of criminal justice.

I. INTRODUCTION: LEGAL RIGHTS AND MORAL RIGHTS

Having outlined two different ways of articulating the tort of negligence, John Gardner explains that: “the way we render the ingredients of the tort matters for the defensibility of the regime of liability that it brings in its wake. The reason is that to defend the incidence of the liability one must first defend the assertion of the duty.” And defending the assertion of the duty—given that the law “stands or falls in its own moral legitimacy depending on whether it has the very moral authority that it claims”—involves the following:

Textualist and originalist legal reasoning usually involves something like the following thesis, whether implicitly or explicitly: the legal content of a statute or constitutional clause is the linguistic content that a reasonable member of the relevant audience would, knowing the context and conversational background, associate with the enactment. In this paper, I elucidate some important aspects of this thesis, emphasizing the important role that contextual enrichment plays in textualist and originalist legal reasoning. The aim is to show how the linguistic framework underlying sophisticated versions of new textualism and public-meaning originalism can help to shed important light on the plausibility of what John Perry calls conception textualism. Contra Perry, I do not think that conception textualism—arguably best classified as a version of expected-applications originalism—is “confused, implausible, and unworkable.” I also briefly compare my linguistic case for conception textualism with Justice Scalia's nonlinguistic argument for it, the main premise of which concerns the constitutive function of constitutions.

What is law, and how do we know what law is? When a philosopher of law asks these questions, it pays to be cautious. When asked philosophically, the question what is law? is clearly not a question about the content of particular laws, although that question is not devoid of philosophical interest: As Nigel Simmonds has said, when disagreements about the law’s content occur, these are generally not disagreements about what the rules are, nor do they revolve around theses of ambiguity in the semantic structure of specific rules. Rather, they seem to depend upon varying conceptions of the framework of principles upon which the law is based.See Nigel Simmonds, The Decline Of Juridical Reason 17–19 (1984).

The last year has seen major changes at Legal Theory. Two of the journals’ editors—David Brink (Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego) and Matthew Adler (Professor of Law, Duke Law School)—stepped down after years of outstanding editorial work. We gratefully acknowledge their invaluable contributions in sustaining and improving the journal. As each editor stepped down, a new editor stepped in. Connie Rosati (Professor of Philosophy, University of Arizona) began work as an editor in the fall of 2016. In the spring of 2017, Mitchell Berman (Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School) joined the journal.

Much legal and philosophical work has been devoted to discussing the importance of protecting freedom of expression from legislative curtailment by the state. That state-centric focus has meant that the ways that wider social phenomena can stifle freedom of expression have, with a notable exception, escaped sustained philosophical attention. The paper reflects on the nature of socially coercive restrictions on free expression and offers an account of how it is appropriate to respond to such forms of social coercion. First, it considers a range of social costs pertaining to expression and argues that such costs can constitute meaningful restrictions on the freedom to express. Second, it reflects on the normative implications concerning that threat to free expression and defends two related moral duties citizens have to refrain from being complicit in unjustified social coercion—a duty of expressive toleration and a duty of respect for expressive agency.

Inclusive Legal Positivism, as understood throughout this article, consists in the following thesis: It can be the case, though it need not be the case, that a norm’s consistency with some or all of the requirements of morality is a precondition for the norm’s status as a law in this or that jurisdiction. While such a precondition for legal validity is not inherent in the concept of law, it can be imposed as a threshold test under the Rule of Recognition in any particular legal regime. That test, which can be applied by the officials in such a regime to all of the legal norms therein or to only some subset of those norms, is one of the criteria that the officials use for ascertaining the law. Insofar as a criterion of that sort does prevail in any particular legal system, then, some degree of moral worthiness is a necessary condition for the legally authoritative force of each norm that is validated thereunder. Inclusive Legal Positivism, which readily accepts the possibility of such a state of affairs, is inclusive because it allows that moral precepts can figure among the criteria that guide officials’ ascertainment of the law. Inclusivist theorists reject the view that every criterion of law-ascertainment in every possible legal system is focused on nonnormative matters of provenance. At the same time, the Inclusivists are positivists because they also reject the view that every possible legal system includes moral tests among its law-ascertaining criteria. An Inclusive Legal Positivist insists that such tests are contingent features, rather than essential features, of the systems of law wherein they are applied.

Irving Kristol invoked the example of voluntary gladiatorial contests to show that liberalism's commitment to personal autonomy cannot override majoritarian standards of morality. Liberalism cannot explain why voluntary gladiatorial contests should be banned, but liberals know that such contests should be banned. Thus, honest liberals must concede that majoritarian morality trumps consent. Arthur Ripstein argues that the consent in gladiatorial agreements contains a formal defect. According to Ripstein, because both gladiators sanction their own deaths, both reduce themselves to the status of mere things or slaves. On the Kantian view, slavery contracts undermine the personal sovereignty that binding contracts must presuppose, so Kantian liberals can reject gladiatorial contracts and still avoid legal moralism. I argue that while Kantian liberals have cogent internal reasons for rejecting slavery contracts, not all gruesome and deadly contests are matters of slavery. Thus, Kristol's challenge remains intact.

Authority is a normative power to create duties in others. The most plausible accounts of this general power relate it to existing reasons the subjects of authority have with which authoritative directives can help them comply. Such accounts lead some theorists to ascribe a morally ambitious function to political institutions. This article argues against such theories. It defends political authority as a modest normative power, constrained by the type of reasons with which it can help its subjects comply. This modest account differs from other liberal views in the limits it imposes on the exercise of political authority. It casts doubt on familiar limits that protect an individual private sphere. Instead, it imposes a condition of moderation. It suggests that legitimate exercises of political authority should leave space for individuals to be motivated by reasons that political institutions do not and should not mediate for them.

The idea of public reason requires that citizens in their public deliberation employ considerations stemming from a shared conception of justice. One worry is that public reason's content will be incomplete, in that it does not contain sufficient material for adequate public debate. Rawls has a way of expanding the content of public reason to address such concerns—by including in public reason all those things you and I say in our justification of the conception of justice. After arguing that this strategy fails, a new way of expanding public reason's content is proposed. Instead of understanding the Supreme Court—which Rawls famously calls the “exemplar” of public reason—as an institution that appeals to exogenously determined public reasons, we should understand the judicial authority in a liberal democratic society as an endogenous fountain of public reason.

It is common ground, as between legal positivists and their critics, that the criminal law ought to be codified in such a way that it can be relied on directly by citizens. I shall criticize this “guidance view” of the criminal law, through analyzing the ambitious attempt of Paul Robinson to devise a criminal code wholly shaped by that view. While there are reasons to favor a legislated criminal code over judge-made criminal law, there is no reason to think that such a code must be capable of guiding laypeople directly. Further, there may be reasons to accept limited judicial discretion to reinterpret the scope of the criminal law to meet unanticipated circumstances. Positivists’ preference (inspired by H.L.A Hart) for legislation coupled with limited judicial discretion is not, and should not, be supported by the (wrongly) supposed need to meet the requirements of the “guidance view.”

Some legal theorists deny that states can conceivably act extralegally in the sense of acting contrary to domestic law. This position finds its most robust articulation in the writings of Hans Kelsen and has more recently been taken up by David Dyzenhaus in the context of his work on emergencies and legality. This paper seeks to demystify their arguments and ultimately contend that we can intelligibly speak of the state as a legal wrongdoer or a legally unauthorized actor.

Is pornography within the coverage of the First Amendment? A familiar argument claims that it is not. This argument reasons that (1) the free speech principle protects the communication of ideas, which appeal to the reason (the major premise); (2) pornography communicates no ideas and appeals to the passions rather than the reason (the minor premise); (3) therefore pornography is not protected by the free speech principle. This argument has been specified in different ways by different writers. The most prominent and careful of these are Frederick Schauer and John Finnis. Both founder on the attempt to distinguish pornography from art, which both would protect. If art, film, and literature should be protected, then this protection should extend to the pornographic subsets of these genres.

According to the prioritized reason model of precedent, precedential constraint is explained in terms of the need for decision-makers to reconcile their decisions with a settled priority order extracted from past cases. The prioritized reason model of precedent departs from the view that common law rules comprise protected reasons for action. In this article I show that a model utilizing protected reasons and the prioritized reason model of precedential constraint are, in an important sense, equivalent. I then offer some reflections on the philosophical significance of this result. I argue that the protected reason model is consistent with the phenomenology of precedential constraint. I suggest an account of precedential reasoning that reconciles the prioritized reason and protected reason models.

Among the most popular strategies for justifying political obligations are those that appeal to the principle of fairness. These theories face the challenge, canonically articulated by Robert Nozick, of explaining how it is that persons are obligated to schemes when they receive goods that they do not ask for but cannot reject. John Simmons offers one defense of the principle of fairness, arguing that people could be bound by obligations of fairness if they voluntarily accept goods produced by a cooperative scheme. Simmons, however, thinks that such a theory will do little work in justifying political obligations, since virtually no one voluntarily accepts state goods. This paper attempts to advance just such a theory by arguing that states are in fact genuine cooperative schemes and that Simmons is overly pessimistic in his appraisal of whether the majority of citizens accept the goods provided by their states.

Judicial review of statutes on constitutional grounds is affected by a cluster of doctrinal practices that are generally accepted, but not very well explained, by the courts and not entirely consistent with each other. Courts usually judge statutes “as applied” rather than as written;See generally Michael C. Dorf, Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 STAN. L. REV. 235 (1994); Marc E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule Requirement, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 359 (1998). they favor “severance” of valid applications of statutes from invalid or possibly invalid applications when possible;See generally Mark Movsesian, Severability in Statutes and Contracts, 30 GA. L. REV. 41 (1995); John Copeland Nagle, Severability, 72 N.C. L. REV. 203 (1993); Robert Stern, Separability and Separability Clauses in the Supreme Court, 51 HARV. L. REV. 76, 82–106 (1937). and they interpret statutes in ways that avoid constitutional difficulty.See generally Frederick Schauer, Ashwander Revisited, 1995 SUP. CT. REV. 71; Adrian Vermeule, Saving Constructions, 85 GEO. L.J. 1945 (1997). These overlapping practices presumably are intended to preserve legislation, and hence are associated with a modest conception of the role of courts in government. Yet they are not always modest in operation. Several commentators have equated the practices mentioned in the text to judicial revision of statutes. See Dorf, supra note 1, at 292–93 (severance results in a “judicially rewritten law”); Nagle, supra note 2, at 220 (the product of severance is “akin to a new statute”); Schauer, supra note 3, at 80–81 (narrowing construction is a form of “redrafting”).

In this paper I address the issue of the normativity of instrumental rules (for example, legal rules). On the one hand, I criticize Scott Shapiro's “constraint model” of instrumental rule-following according to which instrumental rules have motivational clout qua rules: the agent conforms to them simply because they are rules. On the other, I argue for a purely epistemic account of instrumental rule-following. According to this account, instrumental rules inform the agent which action she is required to perform but do not get her to act. Rather the agent is motivationally guided by the reasons for which she adopted the instrumental rules.

There is a close but largely unexplored connection between law and economics and cognitive psychology. Law and economics applies economic models, modes of analysis, and argument to legal problems. Economic theory can be applied to legal problems for predictive, explanatory, or evaluative purposes. In explaining or assessing human action, economic theory presupposes a largely unarticulated account of rational, intentional action. Philosophers typically analyze intentional action in terms of desires and beliefs. I intend to perform some action because I believe that it will (is likely to) produce an outcome that I desire. This standard “belief-desire” model of action invokes what philosophers of psychology and action theorists aptly refer to as a “folk psychology.”

After defining Cosmopolitan Right as being limited to the conditions of “hospitality,” Kant includes “Wirtbarkeit” in brackets, a word that connotes innkeeping. Moreover, significant similarities obtain between the relevant passages of the Perpetual Peace and those of the Digest of Justinian on the obligations of ships’ masters, innkeepers, and stable keepers. Unlike for ordinary householders, hospitality for innkeepers is a legal obligation, not a matter of philanthropy: they have traditionally been deemed public officials with limited discretion to refuse travelers, and as fiduciaries of their guests strictly liable for losses to their property. This article attempts to explain Kant's concept of Cosmopolitan Right by analogy to the private law of innkeeping, and ultimately engages in the central philosophical debate about Cosmopolitan Right by accounting for Cosmopolitan Right solely from the “innate” right to freedom, rather than from “acquired” facts such as land or resource distributions or historical injustices.