Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:33:16.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Saying What the Law Is

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Anya Bernstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exploring what it means to take formal law as an ethnographic object—a social phenomenon that both reflects and affects the society that produced it—this article analyzes the legal doctrine governing the judicial review of agency action. This doctrine is split into two streams: one evaluates agency interpretations of law, the other, agency policy decisions. In choosing to use one or the other, courts thus implicitly categorize the agency action under review as either interpretation or implementation. As interviews with agency administrators underline, however, these categories do not map onto the structure of agency action. Neither do they reflect the qualities of legal language. Rather than reacting to the inherent realities of their object, these doctrines instantiate a language ideology that pits the saying of law against the doing of it. After a brief introduction to language ideologies, I show some linguistic and legal realities that this particular one erases, and trace its recursive ramification in other areas of legal thought. Obscuring the speech-act nature of law, the saying-versus-doing language ideology helps commentators paint a picture of ideal judges as neutral, passive interpreters who merely report on the inherent meaning of law, as opposed to less ideal others who implement policies that change it. I also consider what a new language ideology—one that recognizes that the meaning of legal language emerges in part through its effects in the world—might do.

Type
Symposium on Legal Anthropology
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 14 - 30
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful for incisive comments by Matthew Kelly, Glen Staszewski, and two anonymous reviewers. Many thanks to Deepa Das Acevedo for organizing not only this symposium but also ongoing productive roundtable conversations across numerous conferences and workshops.

References

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1955) 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisa, Marina. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, Kent, and Walker, Christopher J.. 2017. “Chevron in the Circuit Courts.” Michigan Law Review 116: 1–73.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. (1966) 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Miami, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2006. “Parameters of Legitimation and the Environmental Future of a Taipei Neighborhood.” In Echoes from the Poisoned Well: Global Memories of Environmental Injustice, edited by Washington, Sylvia, Goodall, Heather, and Rosier, Paul, 311–31. Oxford: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2008. “The Social Life of Regulation in Taipei City Hall: The Role of Legality in the Administrative Bureaucracy.” Law & Social Inquiry 33: 925–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2016. “Differentiating Deference.” Yale Journal on Regulation 33: 1–53.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2017a. “Before Interpretation.” University of Chicago Law Review 84: 567–645.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2017b. “Bureaucratic Speech: Language Choice and Democratic Identity in the Taipei Bureaucracy.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 40: 28–51.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya. 2020. “Porous Bureaucracy: Administrative Culture in Taiwan.” Law & Social Inquiry 45: 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Anya, and Rodríguez, Cristina. Forthcoming. “The Accountable Bureaucrat.” Yale Law Journal 132.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Anya, and Staszewski, Glen. 2021. “Judicial Populism.” Minnesota Law Review 109: 283–351.Google Scholar
Bray, Samuel L. 2016. “‘Necessary and Proper’ and ‘Cruel and Unusual’: Hendiadys in the Constitution.” Virginia Law Review 102: 687–764.Google Scholar
Cole, Jared P. 2016. An Introduction to Judicial Review of Federal Agency Action. CRS Report Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Constable, Marianne. 2014. Our Word Is Our Bond. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Criddle, Evan J., and Staszewski, Glen. 2014. “Against Methodological Stare Decisis.” Georgetown Law Journal 102: 1573–96.Google Scholar
Emerson, Blake. 2021. “Liberty and Democracy through the Administrative State: A Critique of the Roberts Court’s Political Theory.” Hastings Law Journal 73: 371–436.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr., and Baer, Lauren E.. 2007. “The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan.” Georgetown Law Journal 96: 1083–1226.Google Scholar
Foote, Elizabeth V. 2007. “Statutory Interpretation or Public Administration: How Chevron Misconceives the Function of Agencies and Why It Matters.” Administrative Law Review 59: 673–724.Google Scholar
Gal, Susan. 2002. “A Semiotics of the Public/Private Distinction.” Differences 13: 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan. 2005. “Language Ideologies Compared: Metaphors of Public/Private.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gluck, Abbe R. 2014. “What 30 Years of Chevron Teach Us About the Rest of Statutory Interpretation.” Fordham Law Review 83: 607–32.Google Scholar
Green, Christopher R. 2009. “This Constitution: Constitutional Indexicals as a Basis for Textualist Semi-Originalism.” Notre Dame Law Review 84: 1607–74.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1992. “The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by Duranti, Alexander and Goodwin, Charles, 43–76. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hickman, Kristin E., and Nielson, Aaron L.. 2021. “Foreword: The Future of Chevron Deference.” Duke Law Journal 70: 1015–24.Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith, and Gal, Susan. 2000. “Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation.” In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, edited by Kroskrity, P. V., 35–84. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1985. “Metalanguage as a Linguistic Problem.” In Selected Writings VII: Contributions to Comparative Mythology, Studies in Linguistics and Philology, 1972–1982, edited by Rudy, Stephen, 113–21. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 2005. “Norms, Practices, and the Paradox of Deference: A Preliminary Inquiry into Agency Statutory Interpretation.” Administrative Law Review 57: 501–42.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 2007. “Agency-Centered or Court-Centered Administrative Law? A Dialogue with Richard Pierce on Agency Statutory Interpretation.” Administrative Law Review 59: 889–904.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. 2012. Creating the Administrative Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of American Administrative Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth. 1998. “Linguistic Ideology and Praxis in Law School.” In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, edited by Bambi, B. Schieffelin, Kathryn, A. Woolard, and Paul, V. Kroskrity, 149–62. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Metzger, Gillian E. 2017. “Forward: 1930s Redux—the Administrative State under Siege.” Harvard Law Review 131: 1–95.Google Scholar
Mortenson, Julian Davis, and Bagley, Nicholas. 2021. “Delegation at the Founding.” Columbia Law Review 121, no. 2: 277–368.Google Scholar
Mouffe, Chantal. 2018. For a Left Populism. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1874) 2018. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben. Berlin: Henricus Edition Deutsche Klassik.Google Scholar
Parrillo, Nicholas R. 2021. “A Critical Assessment of the Originalist Case against Administrative Regulatory Power: New Evidence from the Federal Tax on Private Real Estate in the 1790s.” Yale Law Journal 130: 1288–1455.Google Scholar
Pierce, Richard J. Jr. 2007. “How Agencies Should Give Meaning to the Statutes They Administer: A Response to Mashaw and Strauss.” Administrative Law Review 59: 197–206.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, Michelle Z. 1982. “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy.” Language in Society 11: 203–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi B., Woolard, Kathryn A., and Kroskrity, Paul V., eds. 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1974. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description.” In Meaning in Anthropology, edited by Keith, H. Basso and Henry, A. Selby, 11–55. New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1977. “Cultural Prerequisites to Grammatical Analysis.” In Linguistics and Anthropology, edited by Saville-Troike, Muriel, 139–52. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2001. “The Limits of Awareness.” In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Duranti, Alessandro, 382–401. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. 2010. “The Interpretation-Construction Distinction.” Constitutional Commentary 27: 95–118.Google Scholar
Weissbourd, Bernard, and Mertz, Elizabeth. 1985. “Rule-Centrism versus Legal Creativity: The Skewing of Legal Ideology through Language.” Law & Society Review 19: 623–60.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2009. Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, Katherine A. 1998. “Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry.” In Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, edited by Bambi, B. Schieffelin, Kathryn, A. Woolard, and Paul, V. Kroskrity, 3–50. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar