Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Supreme Court and Justice Alex Stein of the Israeli Supreme Court visited the University of Notre Dame School of Law on Tuesday, January 23rd.
In his opening remarks, G. Marcus Cole, Joseph A. Matson Dean of Notre Dame Law School, welcomed the more than 300 law school students, faculty, and staff in attendance. He thanked the judges for their exchange of views, important insights and engagement, and emphasized that Notre Dame is a place for intellectual exchange.
Judges Barrett and Stein engaged in an insightful discussion on legal interpretation within their respective legal systems, moderated by Professor of Law William Kelly. They provided valuable insight into the processes that guide their decision-making and emphasized the importance of legal interpretation in shaping their approach to litigation. As former academics and scholars, both justices have written about the challenges of legal interpretation and now actively apply these principles to address the dynamic challenges of their current roles.
Judge Stein shared his views on statutory and constitutional interpretation of Israeli law. He said courts must apply the law strictly as written, stressing that judges cannot change, redefine or replace legislative intent when it comes to people's rights. He said judges are solely responsible for the law.
He advocated a positivist approach and urged judges to adhere to existing laws without introducing new rules. In response to the challenge posed by the unclear text, he proposed a secondary rule, stating that judges should consider all relevant evidence to determine both the intent and meaning of the law. He said that evaluating different possibilities and choosing the most likely one is important and provides a corrective to traditional interpretive theories.
Judge Barrett began the discussion by emphasizing the beneficial nature of comparative law for law students and highlighting the recognition that nothing in the American legal system is inevitable.
She explained that her originalist approach to constitutional interpretation is rooted in the nature of the American Constitution as a written document that underwent a supermajoritarian process.
Barrett believes there are two types of statutory interpretation issues. One is when the terms are clear but appear to have unpleasant or less meaningful consequences. And if the text is a little more open-ended or you don't explicitly exclude anything. She explained how courts use substantive norms to resolve these issues and the role of substantive norms in statutory interpretation.
Judge Barrett said her views on statutory interpretation are framed by her understanding of the judiciary's role in the United States' system of separation of powers. She compared constitutional interpretation with statutory interpretation and recognized the Constitution's enduring strength due to its concise nature compared to the constitutions of other countries.
Watch their entire conversation here:
The conversation was organized by Professor of Law Avishalom Toll and sponsored by the Notre Dame School of Law, the Notre Dame Law and Market Conduct Program, and the Law and Economics Program.
