The role of the American judge has undergone a seismic shift in recent decades. Once regarded as neutral arbiters who passively oversaw legal disputes, judges have increasingly taken on an active, managerial role—shaping the trajectory of cases long before trial. Judith Resnik’s seminal article, Managerial Judges, published in the Harvard Law Review in 1982, remains one of the most comprehensive critiques of this transformation. In her incisive analysis, Resnik contends that managerial judging has fundamentally altered the adversarial system, raising concerns about judicial impartiality, unchecked discretion, and the erosion of due process.
The Evolution of Managerial Judging
Traditionally, federal judges were expected to maintain a detached stance, intervening in disputes only when necessary to resolve legal questions. Resnik traces the origins of the managerial shift to procedural reforms, particularly the introduction of broad pretrial discovery rights under the 1938 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These rules created a paradox: while discovery encouraged the exchange of relevant information, adversarial norms incentivized parties to withhold as much as possible. Judges increasingly found themselves mediating pretrial disputes, leading to a more hands-on approach that extended beyond the trial itself.
As caseloads expanded, judges began to experiment with case management techniques designed to streamline litigation and encourage settlement. Pretrial conferences, informal negotiations, and direct judicial intervention in discovery disputes became standard practice. Resnik highlights how this managerial movement has transformed judges from passive decision-makers into active overseers, with the power to shape outcomes behind closed doors and outside public scrutiny.
The Risks of Judicial Management
While managerial judging has been heralded as a solution to judicial inefficiency, Resnik warns that it introduces significant risks to the legal system. One of her primary concerns is the erosion of due process. Unlike formal trials, which are governed by established procedural safeguards, managerial interventions often occur informally, off the record, and without clear guidelines. Judges engage in ex parte communications, pressuring parties to settle and imposing procedural rules without written opinions or appellate oversight. This lack of transparency undermines the legitimacy of the judicial process.
Resnik also critiques the discretionary power wielded by managerial judges. Traditional judicial functions—ruling on motions, instructing juries, and issuing reasoned decisions—are constrained by legal standards and subject to review. In contrast, managerial judging operates in a legal gray area, where judges make critical procedural decisions based on intuition rather than established law. This unreviewable discretion raises concerns about potential bias and inconsistency in judicial decision-making.
The Case Studies: Petite v. Governor and Paulson v. Danforth, Ltd.
To illustrate the dangers of judicial management, Resnik constructs two hypothetical cases. Petite v. Governor exemplifies managerial judging in public law litigation. A federal judge, overseeing prison reform litigation, is drawn into ongoing disputes about compliance with court orders. She holds informal meetings, negotiates with attorneys, and eventually micromanages prison administration—actions that, while intended to enforce constitutional rights, raise questions about judicial overreach and separation of powers.
In contrast, Paulson v. Danforth, Ltd. depicts managerial judging in private civil litigation. A judge pressures a defendant in a product liability case to settle, hinting at likely jury sympathies and discouraging prolonged litigation. This example highlights how managerial judges, rather than remaining neutral arbiters, often assume the role of mediators or even advocates for specific case outcomes.
Are There Benefits to Managerial Judging?
Resnik acknowledges that managerial judging has led to some improvements in judicial efficiency. Courts now track case progress more effectively, attorneys face increased accountability, and some complex cases move more quickly through the system. However, she challenges the assumption that management necessarily leads to fairer or cheaper outcomes. Data supporting these claims remain sparse, and the push for efficiency often comes at the cost of deliberative, impartial adjudication.
Restoring the Balance: Resnik’s Proposed Reforms
To address these concerns, Resnik proposes a series of reforms aimed at restoring the traditional adversarial model while preserving judicial efficiency. She advocates for stricter procedural safeguards, including prohibitions on ex parte communications and mandatory documentation of case management decisions. Additionally, she suggests separating the roles of judicial managers and adjudicators, with different judges handling pretrial supervision and trial proceedings.
Resnik also explores alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, arguing that case management functions could be delegated to magistrates, arbitrators, or administrative agencies. Finally, she calls for legislative action to establish clearer guidelines for judicial intervention, ensuring that efficiency measures do not come at the expense of fairness and impartiality.
Conclusion: The Future of Judicial Management
Resnik’s critique of managerial judging remains profoundly relevant today. As judicial caseloads continue to grow and courts explore new efficiency-driven reforms, the tension between managerial oversight and adversarial justice persists. While judicial intervention may expedite case resolution, it risks transforming judges into bureaucratic administrators rather than neutral decision-makers.
Ultimately, Resnik’s analysis serves as a cautionary tale. In the pursuit of efficiency, the judiciary must not lose sight of its foundational principles: impartiality, procedural fairness, and reasoned adjudication. Managerial Judges challenges us to consider how best to balance these competing priorities, ensuring that the courts remain not only efficient but also just.
Comments