Distinguishing between Custom and Law: Empirical Examples of Endogeneity in Property and First Amendment Precedents

By Chen, Daniel L.; Yeh, Susan | The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, May 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Distinguishing between Custom and Law: Empirical Examples of Endogeneity in Property and First Amendment Precedents


Chen, Daniel L., Yeh, Susan, The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal


(ProQuest:. denotes formulae omitted.)

Introduction

This Article discusses the relationship between custom and law to highlight the phenomenon of endogeneity that arises when empirically evaluating the effects of laws. An important literature evaluates the roles of laws in motivating behaviors, including investigations of whether or how laws influence customs and social norms. Traditional economic analysis, for example, posits that codified laws influence behaviors by for- mally incentivizing a particular action, and social norm theories assert that the laws also communicate values.1 Enhancing this strand of thought, an increasing number of works employing historical or empirical analyses have linked laws to broader societal changes over time.2 Meanwhile, a valuable discourse examines how customs may deter- mine both de facto laws and formally enacted laws, including the court precedents that are rendered.3 Whether they are directly codified into a legal test or informally referenced, customs can influence formal laws that are adopted in a community and beyond. Indeed, some scholars have argued that evolving customs and norms have influenced the Supreme Court in its decisions.4

The subsequent effects of these formal laws and court decisions are of tremendous interest to policymakers and judges. With policy concerns in mind, we argue that one must not ignore the endogenous feedback between aggregate behaviors, customs, and laws. That is, while customs may shape or influence laws, laws can also shape customs through their effects on behaviors or norms in the aggregate. The endogeneity that custom produces suggests that simply by observing a correlation between law and behavior is not enough to assert that a law in itself is effective or to assert that social trends and evolving customs are driving legal change.5

Importantly, legal scholars from historical to international to political perspectives recognize that the interplay between custom and law involves feedback between both.6 Individuals endorse customs partly by learning from the apparent beliefs of others and partly by distorting their public responses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance. "Availability entrepreneurs" manipulate the content of public discourse and strive "to trigger availability cascades likely to advance their own agendas."7 Public discourse, in turn, influences law. Other scholars suggest that customary inter- national law, having no binding power on states, does not influence rational actors who only follow custom insofar as it suits their best interest.8 Theorists have formally modeled this relationship.9 Moreover, whether court decisions respond to the public's policy preferences is important in the larger context of understanding how courts may rely on dominant customs for public legitimacy.10 However, no empirical study of

custom and law sufficiently addresses this endogeneity in its causal claims, and we are not aware of previous studies that empirically distinguish between law and custom. It remains an open empirical question whether appellate precedent in practice is moti- vated by customs that vary across time and space. To what extent are customs actually driving some laws in real life?

We contribute original empirical evidence highlighting the role of custom within court-made law in the United States. To do so, we use a narrower conception of the relationship between custom and law.11 We focus on law as represented by court-made appellate precedent, and to illustrate our points, we use two distinct doctrinal examples in the United States. The first is obscenity law, where custom is directly referenced in the law through the Miller community standards test.12 The second example is takings law, where we argue that entrenched expectations about what constitutes just compen- sation and public use in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment play significant roles in shaping the law though they are not explicitly codified.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Distinguishing between Custom and Law: Empirical Examples of Endogeneity in Property and First Amendment Precedents
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?