Contrary to Chief Justice Roberts’ Objections, It Turns Courts Do Rely on Law Review Articles

July 23rd, 2010

A few months ago, Chief Justice Roberts made somewhat of a splash, and commented that law review articles are not particularly helpful to resolve cases. From WSJ Law Blog:

Law Reviews: Perhaps relatedly, Roberts said he doesn’t pay much attention to academic legal writing. Law review articles are “more abstract” than practical, and aren’t “particularly helpful for practitioners and judges.”

A new article, titled The Use of Legal Scholarship by the Federal Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Study, suggests that other  judges tend not to agree with the Chief (H/T Legal Theory Blog). Here is the abstract:

    Chief Justice Roberts recently explained that he does not pay much attention to law review articles, reportedly stating that they are not “particularly helpful for practitioners and judges.” Chief Justice Roberts’s criticism echoes that made by other judges, some of whom, like Judge Harry Edwards, have been much more strident in the contention that legal scholarship is largely unhelpful to practitioners and judges. Perhaps inspired by criticisms like those leveled by Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Edwards, legal scholars have sought to investigate the relevance of legal scholarship to courts and practitioners using a variety of means. One avenue of investigation has been empirical, where several studies, using different, and sometimes ambiguous, methodologies have observed a decrease in citation to legal scholarship and interpreted the observation to mean that legal scholarship has lost relevance to courts and practitioners.

    The study reported here examines the hypothesis that legal scholarship has lost relevance to courts. Using an original dataset that is substantially more comprehensive than previous studies and empirical techniques, it examines citation to legal scholarship by the United States circuit courts of appeals over the last 59 years. It finds a rather surprising result. Contrary to the claims of Justice Roberts and Judge Edwards, and contrary to the results of prior studies, this study finds that over the last 59 years – and particularly over the last 20 years – there has been a marked increase in the frequency of citation to legal scholarship in the reported opinions of the circuit courts of appeals. Using empirical and theoretical methods, this study also considers explanations for courts’ increased use of legal scholarship.

    And here is a chart (courtesy of Professor Solum) which charts citations to legal scholarship by year.