Weber and Judicial Legitimacy: A Critical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Immigration Cases Nielsen v. Preap (2019) and Barton v. Barr (2020)

Authors

Frances P. Bernat, Texas A&M International University
Craig Curtis, Bradley University
Rebecca Davalos, Texas A&M International University

Keywords

immigration, supreme court, united states, judicial legitimacy

Document Type

Article

Abstract

This paper analyzes the legitimacy of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Nielsen v. Preap and Barton v. Barr, against the principles expressed in Max Weber’s theories regarding rational legal order and judicial legitimacy. The legitimacy of our judiciary depends on the public perception that it is a politically neutral, non-partisan arbiter of the rule of law in our society. When the Court is perceived as serving partisan interests, or promoting arbitrary action by the executive branch, its legitimacy is threatened. After careful exploration of the value of an impartial and politically neutral judiciary, as seen through the lens of Weber’s theories, the inescapable conclusion is that both the Nielsen v. Preap and Barton v. Barr rulings are neither just nor fair, and are harmful to the legitimacy of the judiciary.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

https://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.921b6511

Recommended Citation

Bernat, Frances P.; Curtis, Craig; and Davalos, Rebecca (2020) "Weber and Judicial Legitimacy: A Critical Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Immigration Cases Nielsen v. Preap (2019) and Barton v. Barr (2020)," Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21428/b6e95092.921b6511
Available at: https://research.library.kutztown.edu/jcjl/vol4/iss1/1