Abstract:The dominant social scientific approach to studying judicial behavior treats judges as strategic actors pursuing their political preferences under institutional constraint. The intellectual roots of this rational choice approach are in American law's long but sporadic engagement with pragmatist ideas. This article challenges that approach: a fully pragmatist account of judicial action provides a better description of the intellectual and social work of judging, and better explains how judges reach a decision in difficult cases that most affect the development of law and its relationship to society. The article argues that the foundational intellectual problem for appellate judges is how to define the legal questions presented in a case. Definitions of legal questions arise from the interplay of habitual and creative action in the local social context of an appeals court. Professional and local interpretive habits and legal forms ordinarily do a great deal to define the key questions, which are not strictly determined when a case comes before a court. Unscripted small group interactions at oral arguments also figure in question definition; oral arguments are most important in the rare but legally important cases where habitual practices alone are insufficient to delimit the legal question judges must answer. Supported by extensive interviews with federal appeals judges and clerks, the article illustrates judges' creative, interactional efforts to define an answerable question in a major asylum case decided in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Building from this case, the article describes the factors that shape judicial question definition, and describes the conditions when creative judicial action is likely to be most prominent.

Interrogatives in the Field: Imaginary Questions, Real Answers, and the Law

Presuppositions And Discursive Control In Court Examinations

There-existential Sentences in Trial: A Corpus-based Approach

The pragmatic turn in law: Inference and interpretation in legal discourse

Chapter 12. How can I persuade you without making self-assertions?

Reasoning in Social Settings

The limits of the imaginary: Challenges to intervening in future speculations of memory, data, and algorithms

Concepts, abstractness and inner speech

Using interrogative logic to teach classical logic

Tales from the Butterfly Café: Imagined Dialogues with Fictional Characters for Research and Practice

From Lawvere to Brandenburger-Keisler: interactive forms of diagonalization and self-reference

How to Undo (and Redo) Words with Facts: A Semio-enactivist Approach to Law, Space and Experience

Construing hypotheticals: How hypotheticality affects level of abstraction

METAPHOR IN LEGAL COMMUNICATION

An Ideational Functional Analysis of Argumentative Discourse in English Courts

Counterfactual and Semifactual Explanations in Abstract Argumentation: Formal Foundations, Complexity and Computation

Triviality and interrogative embedding: context sensitivity, factivity, and neg-raising

Shared Imagination: LLMs Hallucinate Alike

“Habit and creativity in judges’ definition and framing of legal questions”

The winter, the summer and the summer dream of artificial intelligence in law

A New Paradigm for Counterfactual Reasoning in Fairness and Recourse