Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Debates Legal Doctrines in Harvard Law School Panel

Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer spoke on the practical challenges of legal interpretation with several legal experts at a Harvard Law School panel hosted by the Harvard Law Review Monday afternoon.

Moderated by Andrew T. Carothers, a third-year law student at HLS, Breyer was joined by Judge Kevin C. Newsom, a HLS alumni and circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Alana C. Frederick, an attorney serving as a judicial law clerk for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Thomas E. Nielsen, a HLS alumni and litigation associate at a multinational law firm.

Panelists argued over the merits of their contrasting legal doctrines. Breyer and Nielsen spoke on behalf of a looser interpretation of the law through a pragmatic lens — interpreting statutes within their specific political and social context.

Newsom and Frederick argued in favor of a stricter interpretation of the law, adhering to the formalist viewpoint that the law is separate from its social context. They emphasized legal interpretation that “pays very close attention to language” and is “relatively agnostic for things like purposes, consequences, values,” Newsom said.

“Formalism is a better means of constraining judicial discretion,” Newsom said, emphasizing its importance in a democracy.

Newsom and Frederick reasoned that a formalist approach promotes objectivity in interpreting the law, while the opposition criticized the idea that the plain meaning of the words could be stripped of their specific context and values.

When the moderator was asked about what he hoped the audience would take away from the panel, Carothers said that he “hoped it would really be sort of, not necessarily the start of a new conversation, but an ongoing conversation.”

“I want people, regardless of their views on these topics, to come into it to hear from really smart people sharing different perspectives — and then continue to think critically about how should we approach questions of interpreting statutes or interpreting the Constitution,” Carothers said.

Dina M. Zingaro, a student at HLS and the Harvard Divinity school, said she was excited to attend a panel with contrasting opinions.

“These are my favorite panels at the law school, where you have opposing viewpoints,” Zingaro said.

Reflecting on the discussion with Breyer, Frederick said, “I really appreciate that we might not agree on everything. We really appreciate and value all of his contributions from sort of a different perspective.”