How much power and discretion do judges have in the U.S.? What drives their decision-making? These questions are at the heart of the course in judicial politics taught by Professor Jeffrey Lax from the Department of Political Science this summer at Columbia University’s Summer Session.
With news headlines about tension between the executive and judiciary branches of the U.S. government, Lax’s course is particularly timely. Students will learn about a wide range of topics––specifically, what courts do; how different legal systems function; the operation of legal norms; the U.S. judicial system; the power of courts; constraints on judicial power; judicial review; the origin of judicial institutions; how and why Supreme Court justices make the decisions they do; case selection; conflict between the courts and the other branches of government; decision-making and conflict within the judicial hierarchy; the place of courts in American political history; and judicial appointments.
In a recent interview, we asked Professor Lax about his area of expertise and his Summer Session course Judicial Politics.
Please describe your background and how you got into your field.
I got into studying judicial politics—and American politics more generally—through an interest in constitutional law, after being torn between political science, math, economics, and physics in college. Then I realized I could actually study courts and judges using game theory and statistical analysis and still dive into the rich substance I loved. It all came together—far better than if I’d planned it. These days, I focus on two mostly separate areas: judicial politics and how public opinion does (or doesn’t) shape policy.
What course are you teaching this summer? Can you tell us about the class and your approach to teaching it?
I’m teaching a recently reworked lecture course on judicial politics. We’ll explore how and why judicial systems work the way they do—versus how people often think they work. We’ll take on common myths about judging, courts, and law: myths of neutrality, equality, law versus politics, and power versus reason. Together, we’ll adjudicate—if you’ll pardon the pun—these myths of judging.
If you have taught this course before, can you describe the dynamic of the class? What interests do your students have, and how does that influence the class? What are your hopes and expectations for the classroom dynamic if you haven't taught this course before?
Even though it’s technically a lecture, there’s plenty of back-and-forth. I tailor examples and topics based on interest. Some of the best parts of past versions of this course came from unexpected debates sparked by news events or student questions. I’ve expanded or adjusted topics on the fly before—and I plan to again.
Your area of expertise, the U.S. judicial system, is particularly relevant in the news right now. Can you tell us about how your work and teaching are affected by recent events?
It’s a tricky time to be studying courts, because the normal amount of fudging in judging—the familiar bending of legal discourse, the wink-and-nod of stretching precedent—has, in many cases, given way to outright breaks from traditional practice. We’ll make space to talk about these changes, from the rise of the so-called shadow docket to larger shifts in judicial behavior, all while putting them in historical context.
What major lessons do you hope your students will learn from your summer session course?
By the end, you’ll recognize the myths of judging (and know how to assess them). You’ll understand why Supreme Court cases are so weird (and how that matters). You’ll come away with a clearer sense of how judging actually works, and you’ll start spotting judicial politics in every area of politics and policy touched by courts—which is to say, all of them.
How is teaching a summer course different from teaching in the school year, and what do you enjoy or look forward to most about teaching in the summer?
My summer course moves fast—there’s no time for a midterm, and research papers are swapped for shorter assignments connecting the news to course materials. But that also means we get a more conversational, intense, and personal class dynamic. Less like a series of lectures, more like a rolling conversation (albeit a long-winded one).
