Monday, April 11, 2011

Sherry on Erie as the Worst Decision of All Time

We covered earlier the symposium at Pepperdine on the most maligned decisions in Supreme Court history. Professor Suzanna Sherry (Vanderbilt) has posted on SSRN a draft of her contribution to that symposium, entitled Wrong, Out of Step, and Pernicious: Erie as the Worst Decision of All Time. Here's the abstract:

This essay was written for “Supreme Mistakes: Exploring the Most Maligned Decisions in Supreme Court History.” A symposium on the worst Supreme Court decision of all time risks becoming an exercise best described by Claude Rains’s memorable line in Casablanca: “Round up the usual suspects.” Two things saved this symposium from that fate. First, each of the usual suspects was appointed defense counsel, which made things more interesting. Second, a new face found its way into the line-up: Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. My goal in this essay is to explain why Erie is in fact guiltier than all of the usual suspects.

I begin, in Part I, by setting out the three criteria that I believe must be satisfied for a decision to qualify as the worst of all time. I also explain briefly why each of the usual suspects fails to meet one or more of those criteria. The heart of the essay is Part II, examining in detail how Erie satisfies each of the three criteria. I close with some concluding thoughts on the surprising relationship between Erie’s flaws and those of the other suspects.


Conferences/Symposia, Recent Scholarship, Supreme Court Cases | Permalink


Interesting article. When we talk about lasting effects of a decision, would it also be correct to say that, while Korematsu left us with the notion that curtailments of the rights of a single racial group are inherently suspect, is this case also responsible for the Court's deference to the government on issues of national security? Or was that sort of deference evolving more slowly?

Posted by: Brad Pollina | Jul 2, 2011 8:47:42 AM

Post a comment