E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Public law discourse and
practice revolve around the concept of the public. Public opinion
is said to constrain the Court, curtail executive abuse, and determine the
winner of interbranch conflicts. Agencies are asked to regulate for the
public welfare while complying with public records laws, public meetings
laws, and public notice laws. Courts grant preliminary injunctions in the public
interest. And on and on.
But who or what is this public that
is endlessly invoked as a source of practical guidance and democratic
legitimacy for public law institutions and decisions? And how do the
decisionmakers know what “it” wants or needs? Clear answers to these questions are elusive, as contemporary legal scholars and practitioners tend to appeal to the public without a great deal of specification or reflection.
In a new paper titled Looking for the Public in Public Law, political theorist Nikhil Menezes and I try
to document this slipperiness; show how it elides important conceptual, empirical,
and normative difficulties that have become increasingly acute in recent years;
and suggest possible responses.
Here is the abstract:
The “public” is everywhere and
nowhere in contemporary public law. Everywhere, in that the term is constantly
invoked to justify and explain existing arrangements. Nowhere, in that serious
attempts to identify a relevant public and elicit its input are few and far
between. Scholars and officials depict the American public as playing myriad
roles in governance—checking, guiding, approving, repudiating—without offering
an account of how public preferences are formed or how they exercise influence
on the questions of interest.
This Article seeks to identify and
call attention to the foundational dilemmas underlying this disconnect, to
clarify their normative contours and intellectual history, and to propose a
pragmatic response—grounded in the recovery of the public’s role as an author
and not just a monitor of public law. We first detail how public law’s
stylized appeals to the public reflect analytic imprecision and inattention to
the values, views, and votes of actual people. We then show how these omissions
and obfuscations leave public law vulnerable to critiques from both the left
and the right, which have been gaining force on account of broad
transformations in the administrative state, social structure, and public
sphere. It may not be possible to resolve these dilemmas fully or to redeem the
public writ large as an agent in public law. But drawing on recent political
science work on deliberative democracy, we outline a research and reform agenda
for identifying, constructing, and empowering coherent publics (plural) capable
of legitimating legal change.