Former Justice Breyer Speaks At Harvard Panel On Legal Interpretation – Above the Law

One
of
the
quickest
lessons
you
pick
up
in
law
school
is
that
the
path
to
knowing
the
law
doesn’t
end
at
finding
a
line
in
the
Constitution
or
a
statute
and
reading
it
aloud
to
anyone
who
would
hear
it.
A
major
part
of
thinking
like
a
lawyer
is
knowing
how
to
read
—
it’s
the
hunt
for
historical
context
and
caselaw
that
can
really
get
you!
The
meta-discourse
on
how
to
read
the
law
—
one
of
the
most
interesting
things
about
lawyering
—
is
so
important
that
if
you
invite
experts
to
discuss
legal
interpretation
at
your
school,
you
better
make
sure
you
get
someone
who
knows
what
they’re
talking
about.
Harvard
pulled
a
Harvard
and
formed
a
star-studded
panel
to
help
their
students
parse
through
legal
interpretative
methods.

The
Crimson
has
coverage
on
who
was
there:

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.

It’s
no
question
that
Stephen
Breyer
is
the
biggest
name
on
the
bill,
but
don’t
sleep
on
Kevin
Newsom.
Judges
are
rarely
thought
of
as
hands-on
investigative
and
experimental
types,
but
his
relatively
recent
foray
into

using
generative
language
models
to
suss
out
the
ordinary
meaning
of
contract
terms
was
super
interesting.
Just
to
be
clear,
he
advocated
for
the

potential
use
of
AI
as
a
tool
that,
in
conjunction
with
the
other
tools
and
frameworks
like
dictionaries
and
common
sense
judges
normally
use
to
get
at
the
ordinary
meaning
of
words
—
nothing
brash
like

saying
that
the
judiciary
could
be
replaced
if
Grok
was
fed
a
bunch
of
judicial
opinions.
And
for
what
it’s
worth,
asking
a
language
model
the
meaning
of
boneless
chicken
would
probably
come
up
with
an
answer
that
makes
a
lot
more
sense
than
the
Ohio
Supreme
Court’s
decision
that
the
boneless
in
“boneless
wings”
means
“of
course
there
might
be
bones
in
this,
actually.”

The
meat
of
the
conversation
weighed
the
merits
of
a
pragmatic
and
culturally
informed
approach
to
legal
interpretation
with
a
more
formalist
and
language-bound
hermeneutic
approach.
It’s
a
heady
way
of
approaching
the
purpose
of
interpretation
that’s
best
grasped
by
concrete
problems:
take,
for
example,
the
question
of

if
fish
are
“tangible
objects”
under
Sarbanes-Oxley
or
if
the
Jan.
6th
coup’ers
violated
—
you
guessed
it
—

Sarbanes-Oxley.

Would
have
loved
to
have
been
a
fly
on
the
wall
for
that
conversation!
To
any
law
students
who
get
the
chance
to
hear
judges
talk
in-depth
about
how
and
why
they
interpret
the
law,
make
sure
you
take
them
up
on
it!
Well,
unless
it’s
Judge
Stewart
Kyle
Duncan
—

he’s
not
the
best
at
answering
questions
on
method.

Former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Stephen
Breyer
Debates
Legal
Doctrines
in
Harvard
Law
School
Panel
[The
Crimson]

Earlier:

Federal
Judge
Uses
ChatGPT
To
Make
His
Decision
And
It
Makes
More
Sense
Than
You’d
Think

Elon
Musk
Feeds
AI
‘All
Court
Cases,’
Promises
It
Will
Replace
Judges
Because
He’s
An
Idiot

‘Boneless’
Wings
Can
Have
Bones,
Declare
Committed
Textualists