Putting Precedent in Its Place, Part 2
This lecture argues that the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme law, defining a limited role for precedent. It contends the exclusionary rule lacks fit as Fourth Amendment wrongs were meant for tort suits, not freeing the guilty, and reads Casey and Dickerson through this lens of precedent's binding authority.
The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme law of the land. Akhil Reed Amar works out what that means for when precedent should stand and when it should fall.
This lecture returns to remedies, arguing that the exclusionary rule lacks a proper fit because Fourth Amendment wrongs were meant to be answered by tort suits, not by freeing the guilty. Amar then sets out a limited role for precedent: binding on lower courts, a starting point and persuasive authority for the Supreme Court, and controlling where reliance interests or popular acceptance have taken hold, as with paper money and Miranda. He reads Casey and Dickerson to fit this account.
Putting Precedent in Its Place, Part 1
Next · Lecture 11Honoring the Icons, Part 1