Tanmoy Bhattacharyya on American Jurisprudence (Ten Lectures)
Tanmoy Bhattacharyya on American Jurisprudence (Ten Lectures)
Law and Economics and Conservative Legal Movements
The intellectual constellation known as Law and Economics emerged in the mid-twentieth century as both a methodological insurgency and a counterweight to prevailing jurisprudential orthodoxies. Its epicenter—by reputation and by influence—was the University of Chicago, where economists and legal scholars collaborated in a sustained attempt to reconceptualize legal doctrine through the analytic apparatus of microeconomics. The movement crystallized around several foundational interventions. Ronald Coase’s “The Problem of Social Cost” (1960) destabilized conventional assumptions about liability rules by demonstrating that, under conditions of low transaction costs, the legal assignment of an entitlement does not determine the allocative outcome; the parties will bargain to the efficient arrangement regardless of initial allocation. This idea, later dubbed the “Coase Theorem,” functioned less as an empirical prediction than as a heuristic device, compelling scholars to examine how real-world frictions—information costs, bargaining impediments, market structure, and strategic behavior—interfere with idealized bargaining equilibria. Guido Calabresi’s early work on accident law extended this insight, arguing that doctrinal constructs such as negligence, strict liability, and contributory fault could be analyzed as mechanisms for minimizing the sum of accident costs and accident avoidance costs. Richard Posner’s voluminous scholarship, culminating in Economic Analysis of Law, proposed that entire fields of private law—torts, contracts, property—display a latent efficiency logic that courts, whether consciously or inadvertently, tend to approximate. In this synthesis, legal rules were no longer moral pronouncements or instantiations of corrective justice but complex incentive structures whose legitimacy turned on their capacity to minimize social costs and maximize aggregate wealth.
This methodological revolution had several jurisprudential implications. First, it offered a unifying vocabulary for disparate doctrinal areas previously treated as islands of specialized expertise. Second, it recast litigation not as a ritualistic quest for individualized justice but as a mechanism for structuring incentives to produce socially optimal behavior. Third, it supplied a critique of legal formalism: rules were not ends in themselves but tools for shaping economic conduct. And finally, it presented an implicit normative challenge to rival paradigms—particularly distributive justice theories, legal process theory, and critical legal studies—by privileging efficiency as the principal evaluative criterion. Critics charged that this emphasis covertly smuggled in contested moral premises, valorizing wealth maximization and market ordering at the expense of equity, dignity, or democratic accountability. Proponents replied that efficiency offered a transparent, predictable metric that avoided the indeterminacy of moral theorizing and enabled durable, empirically informed governance. The Law and Economics movement thus became a gravitational center in American legal thought, influencing judicial reasoning, law school curricula, regulatory design, and even criminal justice (where scholars argued that punishment could be understood as a pricing mechanism for socially harmful conduct).
Alongside—and sometimes intertwined with—this economic modernism rose a parallel intellectual development: the consolidation of conservative and libertarian legal thought, institutionalized most visibly through the Federalist Society, founded in 1982. Born from frustration with what its founders perceived as the ideological monoculture of the late Warren and early Burger Courts, the Federalist Society provided an infrastructure for debate, professional networking, and the diffusion of conservative jurisprudential theories. It served both as an intellectual incubator and as a pipeline through which ideas migrated from scholarly discourse into governmental policy, judicial appointments, and ultimately constitutional doctrine.
Central to this movement was the revitalization of originalism and textualism. Originalism—initially framed as adherence to the original intent of the Framers—evolved into a more sophisticated commitment to original public meaning, the linguistic and conceptual content that constitutional provisions would have conveyed to a reasonably informed member of the political community at the time of ratification. Textualism, especially in statutory cases, sought to discipline judicial discretion by insisting that the semantic meaning of enacted language—not legislative history, not inferred purpose, not evolving social values—sets the boundaries of judicial interpretation. Justice Antonin Scalia became the movement’s most charismatic architect. Through his academic writing, particularly A Matter of Interpretation (1997), and a long record of judicial opinions from the late 1980s through the 2010s, Scalia shifted interpretive method toward a rigorously linguistic approach, skeptical of purposivism and deeply distrustful of judicial creativity. His influence was amplified by a generation of clerks, scholars, and jurists who internalized textualist methodology as both a professional norm and an ideological project.
As judicial appointments in the 1990s and early twenty-first century accumulated—culminating in the placements of Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—the Court assumed a doctrinal trajectory that fused originalism in constitutional adjudication with textualism in statutory interpretation. This alignment reshaped numerous legal domains, from Second Amendment jurisprudence (through historical analogues) to administrative law (through skepticism of agency authority), to separation-of-powers disputes. The Court’s recent hesitancy toward broad deference doctrines, such as Chevron, signals a philosophical shift toward reducing the adaptive capacity of the administrative state. This skepticism is grounded partly in separation-of-powers formalism and partly in the libertarian-inflected conviction that regulatory authority should be cabined unless expressly authorized by clear statutory text.
Within conservative legal thought, however, there has never been perfect consensus. A libertarian wing, heavily influenced by classical-liberal theory and represented by scholars such as Randy Barnett, advocates a robust reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that would revive economic substantive due process—an approach associated with the Lochner-era protection of economic liberty. Barnett and his intellectual cohort argue that the constitutional structure presupposes individual sovereignty and that governmental power must be justified by affirmative evidence of consent. In their view, the Due Process Clause protects not only personal autonomy but also freedom of contract and economic initiative. Their work attempts to reframe constitutional limits on regulation not as relics of discredited jurisprudence but as logically continuous with modern rights-based liberalism. Although this perspective remains a minority position within the judiciary, it significantly influences academic discourse and occasionally surfaces in concurring or dissenting opinions.
In dramatic contrast, another minority faction—Catholic integralists and post-liberal theorists such as Adrian Vermeule and Josh Hammer—rejects the libertarian premise altogether. Their “common-good constitutionalism” contends that the state’s central function is not to maximize individual autonomy or economic efficiency but to cultivate substantive moral goods rooted in a teleological conception of human flourishing. This school of thought criticizes both originalism and liberal rights discourse as insufficiently attentive to the substantive moral ends of political community. Rather than treating the Constitution as a neutral framework for pluralistic governance, common-good constitutionalists read it as authorizing governance oriented toward the promotion of collective virtues, social cohesion, and moral order—even if this requires subordinating individual rights to hierarchical conceptions of the common good. Their proposals have generated substantial controversy, not only among liberals but among originalists who view such theories as an invitation to judicial adventurism under the guise of moral expertise.
These competing intellectual traditions—Law and Economics, originalism, textualism, libertarian constitutionalism, and common-good constitutionalism—share a common feature: all seek to discipline judicial reasoning through an external criterion that aspires to systematize legal judgment. For Law and Economics, the governing metric is efficiency; for originalists, the determinant is historical meaning; for textualists, semantic content; for libertarians, the primacy of individual sovereignty; and for integralists, the moral architecture of the polity. Each of these approaches arose as a response to perceived indeterminacy and ideological overreach in mid-twentieth-century legal thought. Each aspires to lend objectivity—or at least method—to the inherently contestable enterprise of constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Yet their divergences have produced ongoing tensions within the conservative legal coalition. Economic reasoning can clash with textual fidelity when efficient outcomes diverge from the literal commands of a statute. Originalist historical inquiry may conflict with libertarian commitments to economic autonomy. Common-good constitutionalism is—in methodological terms—antithetical to both textualism and originalism, since it treats moral purpose, not original meaning or textual clarity, as the controlling interpretive principle. And judicial skepticism toward administrative agencies may undermine the regulatory structures that some conservative constituencies depend upon in practice.
Despite these internal fractures, the cumulative impact of these movements on American constitutional culture is unmistakable. Law and Economics reshaped the way lawyers think about incentives, institutional design, and regulatory choice. The Federalist Society made conservative jurisprudence intellectually respectable and professionally influential. Originalism and textualism reoriented interpretive practice at the highest levels of the federal judiciary. Libertarian constitutionalism continues to influence debates over economic regulation and personal autonomy. And common-good constitutionalism, though nascent, challenges the philosophical assumptions of modern liberal constitutionalism, offering a strikingly different account of political authority and constitutional meaning.
Together they form a dense and evolving ecosystem of ideas—sometimes complementary, often antagonistic, always recalibrating the terms of American legal discourse. Their interaction continues to shape the trajectory of the Supreme Court, the architecture of the administrative state, and the intellectual horizons of a new generation of legal thinkers.
Tanmoy Bhattacharyya
Go for the Tenth Lecture
