The Controversy over Citations to Foreign Authorities in American Constitutional Adjudication and the Conflict of Judicial Philosophies: A Reply to Professor Glendon

Authors

• Michel Rosenfeld, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of LawFollow

Publication Date

Winter 2014

Journal

Duquesne Law Review

Abstract

The controversy over U.S. Supreme Court justices citing foreign authorities in constitutional cases reflects a deeper ideological divide between restrictive and expansive judicial philosophies. This debate, evident in cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons, transcends traditional labels like originalism or political ideology, focusing instead on whether judges should defer to majoritarian decisionmaking or actively shape evolving rights. The article argues that the furor over foreign citations will diminish once the broader philosophical clash over judicial interpretation is resolved, as differences over foreign authorities are secondary to this central divide.

Volume

52

Issue

1

First Page

25

Last Page

68

Publisher

Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University

Disciplines

Common Law | Comparative and Foreign Law | Constitutional Law | Judges | Jurisprudence | Law

Comments

Comparative Law in the Age of Globalization

Recommended Citation

Michel Rosenfeld, The Controversy over Citations to Foreign Authorities in American Constitutional Adjudication and the Conflict of Judicial Philosophies: A Reply to Professor Glendon, 52 Duq. L. Rev. 25 (2014).
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/faculty-articles/1384