•  
  •  
 

Keywords

legitimacy, procedural-justice, decision science, intellectual humility

Abstract

Courts decide disputes as one branch of our government. Their authority depends not only on getting the outcome right but also on public acceptance of their authority. In a time when confidence in institutions is under pressure, courts cannot assume that legitimacy will take care of itself. They must earn it—case by case—through both the substance of what they decide and the way they exercise authority in public view.

A large body of procedural-justice research explains one side of that equation. People are more willing to accept court decisions, even unfavorable ones, when the process communicates voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthy motives. At the same time, courts are not legitimacy machines alone. They decide matters of profound consequence, and the public expects them to get it right. Decision science helps explain why that aspiration is difficult even for conscientious judges. Like all human judgment, judicial decision-making is vulnerable to predictable errors—overconfidence, framing effects, motivated reasoning, and unwanted variability (“noise”) that can make outcomes feel like luck of the draw.

This Article argues that a third research tradition—intellectual humility—can connect those two concerns. Intellectual humility is the recognition that one’s knowledge may be incomplete and one’s conclusions fallible, paired with a disciplined openness to reasons and evidence that cut against an initial view. he Article proceeds in three steps. Parts II–IV summarize the procedural-justice, decision-science, and intellectual-humility literatures in terms relevant to judges and courts. Part V integrates them into an “Intellectual Humility by Design” model and operationalizes that model for trial courts, appellate courts, chambers, and court administration, with reasons and explanations treated as the bridge between decision quality and legitimacy. Part VI provides practical tools and adoption pathways, along with a measurement agenda and candid limits. The aim is to offer courts an evidence-informed way to earn legitimacy while improving the reliability of their judgments, through routines that are realistic, teachable, and durable.

Download

Share

COinS