Neutrality and Judicial Review

Frederick Schauer
Additional contact information
Frederick Schauer: Harvard U and New York U

Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government

Abstract: Since Herbert Wechsler's famous article, the topic of neutrality has played central stage in many debates about judicial review specifically and constitutional law generally. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that the heading of “neutrality” encompasses not one but four different debates. One is about principled adjudication, another is about decision according to rules, a third is about substantive neutrality, and the fourth is about the desirability (or not) of designing the institutions of judicial review without regard to likely substantive outcomes and without regard to the likely staffing of those institutions. This paper distinguishes these four conceptions of neutrality and analyzes each of them.

Date: 2003-02
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=72

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp03-008

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().