A Failure to Communicate

By Chemerinsky, Erwin | Brigham Young University Law Review, November 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

A Failure to Communicate


Chemerinsky, Erwin, Brigham Young University Law Review


On Tuesday night, December 12, 2000, at about 10:00 p.m. eastern time, the Supreme Court released its decision in Bush v. Gore} We all vividly remember the image of reporters standing outside the Supreme Court rumbling with copies of the opinion and trying to figure it out while speaking. Some got it badly wrong. In hindsight, it was a monumental failure to communicate by the Court. The public learned that night that the Court had ruled in favor of Bush, but there was not a clear explanation of why. This helped to fuel, though certainly was not entirely responsible for, the sense that the Court decided the outcome of the presidential election on a partisan basis.

Bush v. Gore, of course, is an extreme and obvious example of the Court failing to communicate effectively with the American people. Yet in a sense, history repeated itself in June 2012, when CNN and Fox News initially reported that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.2 This was arguably the most anticipated, and perhaps the most important, Supreme Court decision since Bush v. Gore, and two major media outlets got it wrong and misinformed the American public.3

Although these errors in reporting are not typical and the press certainly deserves a great deal of the blame for hasty and inaccurate reporting, they reflect a larger problem. The United States Supreme Court has a serious failure in communicating with the American public.

In explaining this, I want to make three points. First, I want to describe why I believe that effective, clear communication by the Supreme Court is so important for the law and for society. Second, I want to identify ways in which the Supreme Court fails to communicate effectively. Finally, I want to offer some suggestions to improve the Court's communications.

I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BY THE SUPREME COURT

A starting point in discussing communication by the Supreme Court is to ask, why does it write opinions at all? Neither legislatures nor executives are required to give reasons for their decisions, though reasons are often given. But the expectation is that when the Supreme Court decides a case, there will be a written opinion explaining the rationale. A written opinion serves many functions.4

A judicial opinion provides an explanation to the parties and their attorneys as to why a court came to its conclusion. Perhaps this is less important at the Supreme Court, but judicial opinions at all levels of courts are a way in which judges make it seem that their rulings are not arbitrary and they tell the parties why they won or lost. A large percentage of opinions issued by lower courts are not published and therefore exist solely to explain the rationale for the decisions to the litigants. Judicial opinions are also thought to improve decision making. The need to write out a rationale requires more careful thought than simply announcing a result; there may be instances in which judges change their minds when they try to write out an explanation for their decisions. Also, written opinions increase the legitimacy of a court's decisions for both the litigants and society; the result seems less arbitrary when reasons are given for it. For the Supreme Court, and for appellate courts more generally, written opinions provide guidance for lower courts and for government officials who must adhere to the decisions. In a common-law system, where precedent is given weight, written opinions facilitate this; it is hard to imagine stare decisis without written opinions.5

It is possible, then, to identify many audiences for Supreme Court decisions. The effectiveness of the Court's communication can be assessed relative to each of these audiences.

One audience, of course, is the parties. In a criminal case, an opinion for the government explains to a person why he or she will be imprisoned or even executed. In a civil case, an opinion explains why people win or lose money or whether their interests are protected by the Constitution. …

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

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.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

A Failure to Communicate
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.