When Judges Disagree: Can They Choose Not to Follow a Law?

The question of whether judges can choose not to follow a law when they personally disagree with it is a complex and interesting one. The answer is yes, some judges do it occasionally, but it requires a solid legal rationale or a significant personal animosity towards the defendant. However, such actions often have consequences.

Can Judges Ignore Laws They Disagree With?

From time to time, judges do indeed choose to disregard laws that they find disagreeable. This tendency has been observed in notable cases like the Alien Jedi Trials. However, they must have a clear and convincing reason to do so, and the decision needs to be supported by robust legal arguments. If a judge simply dislikes a law or the defendant, such actions can lead to reversals by appeals courts and potential sanctions.

Legal Basis for Judge's Disagreement

The legality of a judge's decision to ignore a law depends heavily on the basis of their disagreement. Here are two possible scenarios:

Best Case Scenario: Unconstitutional Law

In the most favorable situation, a judge disagrees with a law because it is unconstitutional. If this happens, the decision may be subject to appeal. However, in superior courts, the decision is often upheld. This demonstration of good legal judgment can improve the judge's credibility.

Worst Case Scenario: Personal Dislike

The worst-case scenario involves a judge personally disliking a law, possibly due to political affiliations. A rare example is the hypothetical scenario where a judicial nominee like Scalia or Ginsberg would not pass a disliked law if they were in a position to do so. In such cases, an appeal is very likely to result in the law being reversed, tarnishing the judge's reputation.

Real-Life Examples

Real-life examples can provide insight into how judges handle disagreements with laws. Consider the landmark case Texas v. Johnson, in which Justice Scalia expressed that he personally would have liked to send the defendant to jail but could not because it contradicted the US Constitution. Here, Scalia’s statement represents a clear legal rationale for his decision, despite his personal dislike of the outcome.

Conclusion

Indeed, many judges face decisions they personally dislike, but their duty to interpret the law supersedes personal preferences. For instance, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Scalia, despite their ideological differences, often voted together. This cooperation highlights the need to prioritize the law over personal opinions. As judges, they understand that making difficult decisions based on the law is their primary duty, even if those decisions go against their individual beliefs.