Chris Truax in The Hill
Charter Member Chris Truax published an opinion piece in The Hill today, exploring a sharp divide on the Supreme Court between two competing judicial philosophies: formalism and legal realism.
Using the Court’s recent decision on nationwide injunctions as a case study, Truax highlights how Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson laid out dueling visions of the law’s role in society — and what it means for constitutional accountability.
Truax writes:
“The interesting part is that Justice Amy Coney Barrett… and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson… transformed themselves into living avatars for the yin and yang of judicial philosophy — formalism and legal realism.”
He cautions that while Barrett’s opinion might be technically correct on the narrow legal question, the broader context — including recent rulings that have insulated federal officers from accountability — reveals a disturbing erosion of constitutional safeguards.
“Law is applied philosophy. It has to work in a disordered and inconsistent world… When the rule of law itself is in question… you need moral clarity. You need Jackson’s reasoning.”