The hottest Legal theory Substack posts right now

Juries should avoid contributing to injustice. This means not convicting someone who didn't actually do anything wrong or punishing them too harshly.
Sometimes laws are unjust, and it’s important for juries to recognize this. Disregarding such laws can be a moral duty, just like not helping wrongdoers.
The common reasons people give for convicting in unjust cases are not very strong. It's important to think critically about the fairness of the law and its application.

C. S. Lewis argues that punishment should be based on what a person deserves, rather than just trying to deter others or cure the criminal. This is important for justice to exist.
When punishment is only about deterrence or cure, it can lead to abusing people as mere tools for society's goals, rather than treating them as individuals with rights.
Lewis warns that a system focused just on helping or fixing people can end up being very oppressive, especially if those in power ignore the concept of what someone deserves for their actions.

Sovereign immunity is hard to waive, and waivers must be unequivocal and unambiguous to be valid.
In cases like Department of Agriculture v. Kirtz, the issue of inadvertent waiver of sovereign immunity highlights debates between textualism and purposivism in legal interpretation.
When determining legal rules, prioritizing simplicity can save time and costs in litigation, making the law more accessible to the public.

The Supreme Court may risk looking ridiculous if it rules on Trump's eligibility for office
Court rulings often favor big business and make it harder for people to vote
Courting ridicule through decisions based on psychological states could undermine the rule of law

The philosophical investigation of art and money can be more intriguing than the philosophy of law.
The concept of unjust laws is a key focus in the philosophy of law.
The philosophy of law tackles important real-world dilemmas like war crimes and human rights abuses.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

The debate around the ACA focuses on its constitutionality and how it could affect future federal power. People are unsure if Congress can have unlimited power or if there are laws that should remain off-limits.
There are two main views of the Constitution: one says it strictly limits government power, while the other suggests that over time, the government has expanded its powers. Both views seem reasonable to many.
Finding common sense is crucial in legal decisions. If a law feels unreasonable or goes against what people believe is right, it can lead to public distrust in the legal system, no matter what the actual law says.