Keith Mack
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's views on the use of foreign law in US constitutional cases have been the subject of much debate and scrutiny. While he taught comparative law and international law prior to his time on the bench and expressed support for their inclusion in law school curricula, he became known for his vigorous dissent in cases where foreign law was referenced. Notably, in Roper v. Simmons, Scalia objected to the use of foreign law to support the Court's decision, arguing that American law should not conform to the laws of other nations. He also questioned the value of foreign law in understanding evolving standards of decency in the US and criticized the selective invocation of alien law to support specific arguments. However, in cases like Washington v. Glucksberg, Scalia joined the majority in citing foreign law, indicating a more nuanced approach to its application.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Scalia's opinion on foreign law | Scalia believed that foreign law should not be used in constitutional cases |
| Scalia's teaching experience | Taught comparative law and private international law for 12 years at the University of Chicago and the University of Virginia |
| Scalia's opinion on the use of foreign law in specific cases | Scalia objected to the use of foreign law in Roper v. Simmons, Lawrence (homosexual sodomy case), and Bowman v. United Kingdom |
| Scalia's opinion on the use of foreign law in general | Scalia believed that foreign law could be used as "food for thought" but not as binding precedent |
| Scalia's opinion on the role of standing | Scalia advocated for limits on private-party standing to prevent federal courts from usurping the authority of political branches |
| Notable quotes | "The basic premise of the Court's argument—that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world—ought to be rejected out of hand." |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Roper v. Simmons
In Roper v. Simmons, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that the Stanford plurality had failed to independently assess the proportionality of the death penalty for a specific class of offenders. The Court reversed Stanford's decision, holding that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed by minors under the age of 18. This ruling was based on the Eighth Amendment's protection of the dignity of all individuals, even those found guilty of heinous crimes.
Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, dissented in Roper v. Simmons. Scalia's primary objection was his belief that the Court's analysis was driven primarily by its own judgment about deterrence and retribution. He argued that sentencing decisions made by juries should be based on the specific circumstances of each case. Scalia criticised the majority's conclusion that a "national consensus" existed when more than half of the states that allowed capital punishment also permitted the sentence to be imposed on juveniles.
Furthermore, Justice Scalia objected to the Court's reliance on foreign law in interpreting the Constitution. He accused the majority of selectively invoking foreign law and "ratifying treaties on behalf of the United States" that had been expressly rejected by political branches. Scalia viewed this as an overreach of judicial power and argued that it was the role of democratically selected legislatures to interpret the law and propose amendments to the Constitution. While Scalia disagreed with the use of foreign law in this case, he had previously acknowledged its relevance in certain contexts, such as in Washington v. Glucksberg, where he joined the majority in upholding a state ban on assisted suicide, considering studies on euthanasia in the Netherlands.
In conclusion, Roper v. Simmons highlighted a significant disagreement between Justice Scalia and the majority opinion regarding the use of foreign law in constitutional interpretation. Scalia's dissent emphasised his belief in judicial restraint and his concern about the Court's selective use of foreign legal principles. This case serves as a notable example of Scalia's scepticism towards incorporating international legal norms into domestic constitutional law.
Case Law: Primary Authority or Not?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Washington v. Glucksberg
In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upheld a state ban on assisted suicide. The case was decided on June 26, 1997, with the court holding that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
The case was brought by Harold Glucksberg, a physician, four other physicians, three terminally ill patients, and the non-profit organization Compassion in Dying. They challenged the State of Washington's ban on assisted suicide, which made "promoting a suicide attempt" a felony. The respondents argued that they would assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives if not for the state's ban. They contended that the ban violated the liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Initially, a federal district court ruled in favour of Glucksberg, finding that the right to die was encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision after an en banc review.
The Supreme Court's decision in Washington v. Glucksberg was influenced by its interpretation of the Due Process Clause and the liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court looked to its previous decisions, such as Moore v. East Cleveland, where it had limited liberty interests to those deeply rooted in the nation's history. The Court concluded that assisted suicide was not a right deeply rooted in American history and, therefore, was not protected by the Constitution. The Court also considered the potential consequences of recognising a right to assisted suicide, expressing concern that it could lead to voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia.
Justice Scalia joined the majority in the unanimous decision in Washington v. Glucksberg. While Scalia had a reputation for objecting to the use of foreign law in constitutional decisions, he did not disapprove of foreign law in this case. In fact, the Court cited studies on euthanasia in the Netherlands as evidence of the rational basis for the Washington State legislature's judgment. This case demonstrates that Scalia was not opposed to all uses of foreign law but rather believed that it should not be used as a binding precedent in constitutional cases.
Hypothetical Law Scenarios: What's in a Name?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Lawrence, the homosexual sodomy case
In the case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the use of foreign law, specifically European law, in the Court's decision. Scalia argued that the Court's ruling, which struck down Texas's statute criminalizing homosexual sodomy, was based solely on European law and ignored American legal traditions.
In his dissent, Scalia criticized the Court's reliance on foreign law, pointing out that every European country had said that homosexual sodomy could not be prohibited. He objected to the notion that American law should conform to the laws of other nations. Scalia also wrote that the Court's decision was the result of a "law-profession culture" that had "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda". He believed that the Court had taken sides in the "culture war" instead of remaining neutral.
The Lawrence case involved John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested in Texas for engaging in private sexual activity as a same-sex couple. Their attorneys argued that the Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lawrence and Garner, striking down Texas's statute and recognizing homosexuals' protected liberty interest in engaging in private sexual activity.
Prior to the Lawrence case, there were legal punishments for sodomy, including fines, life prison sentences, and the denial of certain rights. The decision in Lawrence v. Texas was a significant breakthrough for the gay rights movement, setting the stage for future cases like Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right.
Engineering Expertise: Law's Consulting Power
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Printz v. United States
In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), Justice Scalia, joined by four other justices, found that the Brady Act's attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to enforce federal law was not constitutionally valid. The case centred on whether Congress could require state officers to execute federal laws, specifically the interim provisions of the Brady Act, which required background checks for firearm purchases.
The Brady Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993, was designed to prevent handgun violence by establishing a national system for background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Act directed the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct these checks until a national system was in place.
Two CLEOs in Montana and Arizona, Jay Printz and Richard Mack, challenged the constitutionality of these interim provisions, arguing that they forced state officers to carry out federal law. They objected to Congress's attempt to transfer the President's responsibility to administer laws enacted by Congress to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 states, who would be left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control.
Justice Scalia's majority opinion agreed that the Brady Act violated the state sovereignty principle and was not a "necessary and proper" law under the Constitution. This decision protected the principle of federalism and the autonomy of state and local governments, even in the context of enforcing federal laws.
It is worth noting that, while Justice Scalia generally disapproved of references to foreign law in constitutional cases, he did teach comparative law and international law and acknowledged the value of foreign legal materials in certain contexts. In the case of Printz v. United States, Justice Scalia's decision did not explicitly reference foreign law or consider foreign legal principles.
Case Law: When Can Censorship Be Justified?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The use of foreign law in constitutional decisions
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believed that America had much to learn from laws adopted by other nations, except in constitutional cases. In a 2005 debate with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Scalia questioned the value of foreign law in understanding American society's evolving standards of decency. He objected to the use of foreign law in constitutional decisions, as seen in his dissent in Roper v. Simmons, where he rejected the idea that American law should conform to the laws of other nations. Scalia criticized the selective use of foreign law to support one's arguments, calling it sophistry.
However, there are instances where Scalia approved of the use of foreign law. In Washington v. Glucksberg, he joined the majority in upholding a state ban on assisted suicide, with the Court citing studies on euthanasia in the Netherlands. In Printz v. United States, Scalia referenced Switzerland in the context of federalism. Additionally, Scalia acknowledged the relevance of foreign legal materials in some cases, such as those involving the death penalty or the constitutional rights of homosexuals. He also found a case involving the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the entry of Mexican truckers into the US "wonderful".
Despite his objections to the use of foreign law in constitutional decisions, Scalia recognized the importance of comparative law and international law. He taught these subjects for 12 years at the University of Chicago and the University of Virginia and believed that comparative law should be mandatory in American law schools.
In conclusion, while Scalia generally opposed the use of foreign law in constitutional decisions, he was not entirely against considering foreign legal materials or engaging with international law. His views on this matter were shaped by his concern for judicial overreach and his belief in the separation of powers.
Human Trafficking: Case Law and Dismissals
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, in Washington v. Glucksberg, Justice Scalia joined the majority in the unanimous 1997 decision upholding a state ban on assisted suicide.
Yes, in Roper v. Simmons, Justice Scalia objected to the use of foreign law to support the Court's decision, stating that "American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world [...] To invoke alien law when it agrees with one’s own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decision-making, but sophistry."
Justice Scalia believed that judges should not refer to foreign law in constitutional cases. However, he did make an exception for pre-1787 English law in interpreting the United States Constitution.
Yes, in a debate with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Scalia questioned the value of foreign law in understanding evolving standards of decency in American society. He also cited his dissent in Lawrence, a homosexual sodomy case, where he observed that the Court relied solely on European law.
Justice Scalia was concerned about judicial overreach and wanted to prevent federal courts from usurping the authority of political branches. He believed that standing requirements should confine the judiciary to its proper sphere and that federalism should be preserved.
