Legal Internalism as a Mode of Reasoning

Abstract Despite the often-repeated claim that “we are all realists now,” legal reasoning remains rule-driven, conceptual, deductive, and heavily path-dependent. Indeed, this remains true notwithstanding recognition that adjudication involves law-making and that “judge-made” law is real. In this article, we argue that legal reasoning adheres to a phenomenon that is best described as “legal internalism,” which recognizes that doctrine and rules play three critical functions: “translation,” “saliencing,” and “normativization.” In this article, we show how legal internalism operates as a method of reasoning independent of both Legal Realism and Legal Formalism, recognizing an important role for rules, while at the same time accepting the need to balance reason with authority.