The Journal of Things We Like (Lots)
Select Page
Katherine Mims Crocker, Constitutional Rights, Remedies & Transsubstantivity, 110 Va. L. Rev. __(forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN.

Faith in judicial decision-making is waning to say the least. Intense skepticism and criticism reign the day. Charges of unbridled power grabs abound, whether one decries the erosion of stare decisis or applauds perceived course corrections in constitutional law and remedies. All recognize victories may be fleeting as we increasingly unmoor from judicial norms and doctrines of restraint. Perceptions of more overt partisanship and consequential decision-making do not uplift the role of Article III judges or align with judicial independence. Is all hope lost? If one wishes to understand and improve the judiciary, Professor Katherine Mims Crocker’s article, Constitutional Rights, Remedies & Transsubstantivity, is for you.

Professor Crocker argues that federal courts should provide comparable options for securing remedies for discrete constitutional wrongs. The promotion of generality and neutrality to foster consistent application across distinct substantive areas is part of the transsubstantivity paradigm. The article’s focus is constitutional remedies—specifically, doctrines for preventing or punishing encroachments of constitutional rights or, when proper, remedies effectuating constitutional rights. And this moment in history poses an ideal opportunity to recenter on the transsubstantivity paradigm given its apolitical nature.

Judicial vacillation on constitutional rights and remedies is destabilizing. It is anxiety- inducing. Crucial remedies are no longer available. Inconsistency exists on whether and the extent remedies are available for gun rights, abortion rights, and religious rights. The public’s constitutional priorities show deep division across the country, and recent Supreme Court rulings deepen the divide. Though the modern Court trend is relatively consistent in narrowing access to and the extent of remedies for most constitutional rights (except Free Exercise claims), the Court is inconsistent in treatment of remedial doctrines in constitutional rights cases. Professor Crocker’s article is necessary because it provides systematic scholarly criticism and recommendations for enhanced consideration of transsubstantivity for constitutional remedies.

To improve performance and perception of the federal judiciary, Professor Crocker provides a descriptive framework and normative lessons for enhancing the judiciary’s approach to remedial transsubstantivity. The article offers rich definitional aids as well as a novel framework to classify various instances of non-transsubstantivity. As a fresh descriptive analysis, for example, Professor Crocker shows that existing judicial reasoning on remedies principles is sometimes transparent, but other times, “translucent” only shedding partial light without details or “opaque” only providing cloudy and questionable rationales. (Pp. 22 & 29.) Whether translucent or opaque, courts are failing to sufficiently acknowledge and explain doctrinal inconsistencies in constitutional remedies. Normatively, the article shows how increased transparency of judicial reasons for departure in all constitutional-remedies cases will improve judicial craft and enhance accountability. Assessing judicial analysis occurs both at the time of the opinion and to future applications. Courts and critics will evaluate the soundness of the justifications for departure. Professor Crocker also contributes value with concrete examples throughout the work. Notably, this article does not promote one interpretive methodology over any other. Rather, according to Professor Crocker all conventional methods allow for “generality and neutrality” in constitutional remedies doctrines where reasonable minds may disagree on the best interpretative method to resolve questions not clearly answered by existing law. (P. 39.) Consistency, with room for reasoned deviation, is the name of the game. Specifically, the article advances consistency in the approach and availability of remedies in constitutional cases.

The emphasis on consistency is not intended as a rigid stricture. Here, Professor Crocker maintains that we are wise to examine the extent to which federal courts do and should offer similar opportunities for securing relief for violations of constitutional rights. The article provides examples showing how the Supreme Court has departed from the transsubstantivity paradigm in constitutional remedies cases. For example, Professor Crocker analyzes indeterminate remedial standards including the political question doctrine for justiciability and the plan-of-the Convention doctrine in state sovereign immunity cases. From Baker v. Carr to Rucho v. Common Cause and from Hans v. Louisiana to Central Virginia Community College v. Katz and many more cases, Professor Crocker shows the Court’s missteps in using indeterminate tests. Overall, Professor Crocker delivers in-depth analysis of inconsistencies and faulty logic. The article’s insightful commentary advances the scholarly dialogue. And deeper theoretical and doctrinal treatments of remedies law like Professor Crocker’s work warrant serious attention.

A key justification for the transsubstantivity paradigm is that greater overarching principles across remedies issues would reduce politics and the perception of playing favorites in constitutional decisions. Even where variation of doctrines is preferable or necessary, greater transparency in judicial reasons for any departure will aid judicial, public, and scholarly debate on the validity of judicial approaches and reasoning. In a more normative stance, Professor Crocker presents recommendations with the goal of a providing increased ability to debate and assess judicial legitimacy. All proposals include emphasis on viewing transsubstantivity in constitutional remedies decision-making as vital, though not absolute.

Professor Crocker offers four specific suggestions for how courts could improve their approach to constitutional remedies, with special focus on the Supreme Court: (1) enhance attention to “transsubstantivity in the constitutional-remedies context by spotlighting occasions for adherence and emphasizing the importance of explaining departures,” (2) increasing transparency where lacking by having judges explain any disconnect between a doctrine’s rationale and the method of application (the “range”), (3) decreasing overdetermination, which is where judges provide multiple lines of reasoning that are sometimes unnecessary and unjustified, and (4) reconsidering foundations where the Supreme Court makes context-specific distinctions and exceptions. (Pp. 39, 42, 45, 48.) Each of the four improvements is worth serious dialogue and, at least the first two, worth immediate adoption.

For the first point, enhancing attention to transsubstantivity in the constitutional-remedies context, Professor Crocker showcases instances for adherence to remedial doctrines, but also defends certain instance of deviation. Variation may make sense where warranted and well-explained. Professor Crocker explains that, in the wake of cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, now is an ideal moment for increased attention on transsubstantivity given its apolitical nature. Further, Professor Crocker compares Professor Zach Price’s article advancing a theory of symmetric constitutionalism to show how the transsubstantivity doctrine for constitutional remedies can align with the ends sought with symmetrically constitutional rights, but not the preferred means. For example, if indeterminacy remains, Professor Price suggests consideration of partisan consequences whereas Professor Crocker prefers inclusion of political considerations only as an output rather than an input of the presumption of remedial transsubstantivity.

The second point aims to enhance judicial candor and democratic accountability. Here, Professor Crocker identifies Miranda v. Arizona, as an example of helpful transparency about non-transsubstantive decision-making. The justiciability analysis in Los Angeles v. Lyons, is illustrative of insufficient clarity of analysis as it failed to adequately distinguish relevant doctrines. Two specific failings, for example, are that the Court never mentioned the plaintiff was Black or that most who had died from police chokeholds were Black. With more complete explanation, courts could better grapple with application of these remedial doctrines in future cases.

For her third normative recommendation, Professor Crocker critiques the judicial method of giving multiple rationales, which places transsubstantivity at risk. To be sure, a court providing several reasons can be a good thing. It is transparent, which is good. Providing multiple reasons may show the court took litigants’ arguments seriously and may also help on appeal as alternative bases for upholding the ruling where one justification fails. Accordingly, Professor Crocker focuses on negative consequences that can occur where overdetermination includes unnecessary reasons. As a quintessential example, the article provides the special-solicitude rationale in Massachusetts v. EPA, because the rationale is unclear and unnecessary. In fact, three other doctrines justify the opinion: proprietary standing, sovereign standing, and quasi-sovereign standing. Another example provided is the unnecessary ticking-time bomb language in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Court indicated that in 25 years, racial preferences shouldn’t be necessary. If the Court’s statement amounts an expiration date, then the doctrine at issue is non-transsubstantive rather than a principle that should endure.

Last, the article suggests reconsidering, though not necessarily rejecting, foundational doctrines that become less transsubstantive due to excessive exceptions and debatable distinctions. This subsection focuses on cases like Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, where the Court triggered a revolution in sovereign immunity jurisprudence by concluding that Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity via Article I authority. The reasoning was opaque yet repeated by the Court as canonical until recently when the Court began whittling away at it. This pattern may make Seminole Tribe ripe for reconsideration.

This is not a time to surrender on core principles such as expecting judges to provide clear rationales for departures from doctrines and precedent. It’s a time to double down on meaningful principles. A time to refocus, reexamine, and reassert ideals. No doubt, “transsubstantive decision-making about constitutional remedies seems less and less common but more and more crucial.” (P. 50.) We must continue to debate proper judicial decision-making and reach for ideals that will enhance judicial reasoning. If the federal judiciary listens to Professor Crocker, it will  do a better job of applying consistent approaches to constitutional remedies across types of constitutional rights. As Professor Crocker notes, “Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, can do better.” (P. 4.) Then perception and reality will align to bolster the legitimacy of the federal judiciary and, vitally, restore faith in the Supreme Court.

Download PDF
Cite as: Caprice Roberts, Towards an Improved Judiciary—Decisionmaking Consistency on Constitutional Remedies, JOTWELL (May 16, 2023) (reviewing Katherine Mims Crocker, Constitutional Rights, Remedies & Transsubstantivity, 110 Va. L. Rev. __(forthcoming 2024), available at SSRN), https://lex.jotwell.com/towards-an-improved-judiciary-decisionmaking-consistency-on-constitutional-remedies/.