Goodwin
CHARLESTON – I write out of concern for public trust in the courts. Confidence in the Supreme Court is at a low point, and for good reason: too often, its decisions appear as unexplained commands rather than reasoned judgments.
The danger is that we forget what gives courts their true legitimacy — finality, yes, but above all the discipline of reasoned judgment.
The authority of the judiciary rests on more than the power to decide cases. It rests on a reservoir of trust, filled over generations by opinions that explained themselves, respected precedent, and persuaded lawyers and citizens alike that the law was applied with logic and fairness.
Emergency rulings on the “shadow docket,” issued without briefing or explanation, leave the public with orders that must be obeyed but cannot be understood. When precedent is cast aside in abrupt reversals, the sense of continuity that stare decisis is meant to provide gives way to instability. And when opinions splinter into so many parts that no rationale commands confidence, authority is reduced to the bare fact that the Court has spoken.
Such rulings also carry an implicit criticism of the courts below. A district judge or a panel of the court of appeals may explain at length, only to see that work swept aside with no reasoning offered in return. That not only diminishes the authority of lower courts, but also deprives the public of any measure by which to compare reasoning and understand why one view prevailed over another.
That is not enough. Authority may be final, but legitimacy depends on explanation.
Appellate decisions are binding not because they are flawless, but because coherence requires a final word. A nation of 330 million people cannot function if federal law means one thing in West Virginia and another in Illinois. Finality provides the closure the system needs, but it should never be mistaken for infallibility.
Declining approval of the Supreme Court may owe much to unexplained orders, fractured opinions, and abrupt reversals. When authority is stripped of reasons, it must be accepted simply because the Court has the power to command it. Authority without legitimacy cannot long sustain the rule of law.
Justice Robert Jackson captured the truth with characteristic candor: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” Finality is essential for stability, but it is no guarantee of ultimate correctness. A decision is binding because the system requires closure, not because human judges — acting in good faith with the limits of human judgment — have discovered immutable truth.
That is why courts at every level must give reasons that can be seen, followed, and critiqued. The discipline of reasoned judgment — applied case by case, explained in law, and open to correction — is what sustains the reservoir of trust on which the judiciary depends. If that discipline is maintained, respect for the courts can endure even in an era of doubt.
Goodwin is a United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia.
