Overview of Legal Realism
Legal realism is a theory of law that emerged in the early 20th
century, challenging the more traditional views that the law is a set
of rules that can be applied in a mechanical or objective way. It is a
theory predicated on the notion that all law derives from prevailing
social interests and public policy, as opposed to purely formalistic
legal considerations. It is also thought of as a naturalistic approach
to law in that jurisprudence should emulate the methods of natural
science; that is, it should rely on empirical evidence and hypotheses
that have been tested against the reality of the world, rather than
rely on theoretical assumptions about the law. Legal realism
attacked two fundamental axioms of the traditional, formalist
understanding of the common law: that common law legal rules
were neutral and objective, and that the rules themselves could be
determined with sufficient certainty. Realists maintained that all
legal rules were indeterminate in the sense that any articulation of a
rule was subject to multiple interpretations. A case reflecting the
principles of legal realism is Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. The
courts final decision reflected Legal Realism's concern with the
practical effects of judicial decisions and emphasized that law should
reflect local realities and not be subject to a uniform, detached
federal common law.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of the towering figures in American
legal thought, heavily influenced the formulation of legal realism in
American law, particularly with his prediction theory of law which
stands for the idea that law should be defined as a prediction, most
specifically, a prediction of how the courts behave based on realistic,
even moral or biased, considerations. Holmes famously said that
"the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Legal
realists emphasize the difference between how laws are written
(theoretical laws) and how they are applied in practice. They believe
that what actually happens in courts and legal institutions is more
important than the abstract text of laws. Legal realists reject the
formalist idea that legal reasoning is purely logical and objective.
They argue that legal decisions cannot be made simply by applying
rules to facts without considering external social realities. This can
be observed in Brown v. Board of Education whereby the approach
of the court displayed that the law should adapt to social needs and
realities. This is however contrary to legal formalism. Formalism
does not support such calls since it predicates that the application of
the law should be whole and unrevised. The law should thus be
applied to it without the assessment of the environmental and social
factors.
