法律翻译 | 《纽大法律评论》第96卷第3期

译者 | 段依辰 中国人民大学本科

一审 | 刘汉青 北京师范大学硕士

二审 | 刘寅 西南政法大学本科

编辑 | 王妮茜 新疆农业大学本科

         邵娅绮 浙江工商大学本科

责编 | 王有蓉 中国政法大学硕士

When Judges and Justices Throw Out Tools: Judicial Activism in Rucho v. Common Cause

当法官抛弃传统工具：Rucho诉Common Cause案中的司法激进主义

作者：Hon. James Andrew Wynn

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-96-number-3/when-judges-and-justices-throw-out-tools-judicial-activism-in-rucho-v-common-cause/

Madison Lecture

麦迪逊讲座

In this Lecture, I offer my own definition of judicial activism: In deciding a case, a court or judge engages in judicial activism when the court or judge eschews the use of a judicial decisional tool traditionally employed to adjudicate that type of case. In other words, judicial activism involves throwing a long-recognized decisional tool—or, in Justice Marshall’s words, “mediating principle[]”—out of the judicial toolkit. Under my definition, for example, the Supreme Court would engage in judicial activism if it refused without explanation to apply the doctrine of stare decisis, given that stare decisis stands at the center of the common-law tradition we inherited from England and has been applied since the earliest days of the republic.

在本次讲座中，我提出了自己对司法激进主义的定义：在裁决案件时，如果法院或法官避免使用传统上用于裁决该类案件的司法裁决工具，那么该法院或法官就采取了司法激进主义。换言之，司法激进主义涉及将一个长期公认的决策工具，或者用马歇尔大法官（Justice Marshall）的话说，将“调解原则”从司法工具箱中剔除。例如，根据我的定义，如果最高法院不加阐释地拒绝适用遵循先例原则，那么它就是采用司法激进主义，因为遵循先例原则是我们从英国所继承的普通法传统的核心，并且自共和国成立之初就一直适用。

Why does such behavior amount to judicial activism? Because refusing to apply a long-recognized mediating principle eliminates a constraint on a court’s exercise of its decisional discretion. When judges refuse to apply a long-standing interpretive tool, they necessarily expand the universe of situations in which they, in Judge Posner’s words, “bring [their] own policy preferences to bear in order to decide the case at hand.”

为什么这种行为构成司法激进主义？因为拒绝适用长期公认的调解原则消除了对法院行使自由裁量权的限制。当法官拒绝适用一种长期存在的解释工具时，用波斯纳法官（Judge Posner）的话来说，他们必然会增加“利用（他们）自己的政策偏好来裁决手头案件”的情况。

（图片来源于网络）

To be sure, there necessarily are times when judges must rely on their own policy preferences to decide a case. But, from my perspective, simply ignoring without comment a well-established mediating principle generally applicable in the type of case at issue—or justifying the act of discarding a fundamental principle by relying on a legal or policy argument as to the undesirability of that principle—is a fundamentally activist enterprise.

可以肯定的是，有时法官必须依靠自己的政策偏好来裁决案件。但是，从笔者的角度来看，不加评论地忽视一个普遍适用于该争议案件类型的既定调解原则，或者通过依靠认定一项原则不可取的法律或政策论点来为放弃该项基本原则的行为辩护，从根本上说是激进的。

My Lecture will proceed as follows. First, I survey the origin of the term “judicial activism” and the various ways it has been defined by judges and scholars. Those definitions generally fall into two categories: those focused on outcomes and those focused on the process a judge applies in reaching an outcome. Second, I set forth my own definition of judicial activism—which falls into the process category—and explain why I believe that definition gives meaning to the principal concern animating accusations of judicial activism: that the judiciary is stepping outside of its proper role and unjustifiably deciding cases based on its own policy preferences. Third, I explain some means by which activism (as I define it) enters judicial decisionmaking. Finally, I apply my definition to demonstrate why the judicial interpretive methodology of textualism and the recent Supreme Court partisan gerrymandering decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, are stark examples of judicial activist behavior.

我的讲座将如下进行：首先，我研究了“司法激进主义”一词的起源，以及法官和学者对它的多种定义方式。这些定义通常可以分为两类：其一侧重于结果，其二侧重于法官在达成结果时所采用的程序。其次，我提出了自己对司法激进主义的定义，其属于程序范畴，并解释了为什么我相信这个定义赋予了对司法激进主义指责的主要关切以意义：司法机构超出了其应有的作用，并根据自己的政策偏好不公正地裁决了案件。第三，我解释了能动主义（根据我的定义）进入司法决策的一些方式。最后，我运用我的定义来证明为什么文本主义的司法解释方法和最高法院最近关于党派选区划分的裁决，即Rucho诉Common Cause案，是司法激进主义表现的鲜明例子。

Progressive Tax Procedure

累进税收程序

作者：Joshua D. Blank, Ari Glogower

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-96-number-3/progressive-tax-procedure/

Abusive tax avoidance and tax evasion by high-income taxpayers pose unique threats to the tax system. These strategies undermine the tax system’s progressive features and distort its distributional burdens. Responses to this challenge generally fall within two categories: calls to increase IRS enforcement and “activity-based rules” targeting the specific strategies that enable tax avoidance and evasion by these taxpayers. Both of these responses, however, offer incomplete solutions to the problems of high-end noncompliance.

高收入纳税人滥用避税和逃税的行为对税收制度构成了独特的威胁。这些逃税和避税策略破坏了税收制度的累进特征，并且扭曲了其分配负担。对这一挑战的对策通常可以分为两类:呼吁加强国税局（IRS）的执法力度，以及针对这些纳税人避税和逃税的具体策略制定“基于行为的规则”(activity-based rules)。然而，这两种对策都不能完全解决高端不合规问题。

This Article presents the case for “progressive tax procedure”—means-based adjustments to the tax procedure rules for high-income taxpayers. In contrast to the activity-based rules in current law, progressive tax procedure would tailor rules to the economic circumstances of the actors rather than their activities. For example, under this approach, a high-income taxpayer would face higher tax penalty rates or longer periods where the IRS could assess tax deficiencies. Progressive tax procedure could also allow an exception for low-value tax underpayments, to avoid excessive IRS scrutiny or unduly burdensome rules for less serious offenses.

本文介绍了“累进税收程序”的案例，即基于手段对高收入纳税人税收程序规则进行调整。与现行法律中基于行为的规则相反，累进税收程序将根据行为者的经济状况而不是其活动来调整和制定规则。例如，在这种方法下，高收入纳税人将面临更高的税收罚款率或更长的国税局评估税收不足的期限。累进税收程序还允许对低价值少缴税款进行例外处理，以避免国税局的过度审查或对不太严重的违法行为制定不适当的、过于繁重的规定。

（图片来源于网络）

Progressive tax procedure could address the unique challenges posed by high-end tax noncompliance and equalize the effect of the tax procedure rules for taxpayers in varying economic circumstances. It could also complement the alternative approaches of increasing tax enforcement and activity-based rules while avoiding the limitations of relying exclusively on these responses.

累进税收程序可以解决高端税收不合规所带来的独特挑战，并在多样的经济环境中平衡税收程序规则对纳税人的影响。累进税收程序还可以补充加强税收执法和基于活动的规则的替代方法，同时避免因完全依赖这些对策而产生的局限性。

After developing the normative case for progressive tax procedure, the Article illustrates how it could be applied in three specific areas: accuracy-related tax penalties, the reasonable cause defense, and the statute of limitations. These applications illuminate the basic design choices in implementing progressive tax procedure, including the types of rules that should be adjusted and the methods for designing these adjustments.

在阐释了累进税收程序的规范性案例后，本文说明了累进税收程序如何应用于以下三个具体领域：与准确性相关的税款处罚、合理原因抗辩和诉讼时效。这些应用阐明了实施累进税收程序的基本制定选择，包括应该调整的规则类型以及设计和制定这些调整的方法。

Reality Porn

现实的色情

作者：I. India Thusi

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-96-number-3/reality-porn/

Prostitution is illegal while pornography is constitutionally protected. Modern technology, however, is complicating the relationship between prostitution and pornography. Recent technological advances make the creation and distribution of recorded material more accessible. Within our smart phones we carry agile distribution networks as well as the technical equipment required to produce low-budget films. Today, sex workers may be paid to engage in sexual activities as part of performances that are recorded and broadcast to a public audience. No longer confined to the pornography industry, this form of sexual performance can be created by anyone with a cell phone and access to the internet. In addition, modern popular culture recognizes the expressive value of reality and ordinary life. Technological advances will only continue to make broadcasting and sharing everyday life possible, raising the possibility that there will be a growing audience for, and communities organized around, sexually expressive materials online. This Article is the first to analyze this increasingly important and common phenomenon that it defines as reality porn. It argues that reality porn is pornographic paid sex work that should be accorded First Amendment recognition, notwithstanding the criminalization of the underlying act of prostitution. This Article redefines pornography and provides a framework for analyzing this sexual expression. As long as the conduct is consentable—both consented to in fact and consensual in nature—it should not be deprived of constitutional protection.

卖淫是非法的，但色情制品是受宪法保护的。然而，现代科技使卖淫与色情制品之间的关系复杂化。最近的技术进步使录制材料的制作和分发变得更加容易。在我们的智能手机中，我们拥有灵活的发行网络和制作低成本电影所需的技术设备。如今，性工作者可能会从事有偿性活动，同时将其作为表演的一部分录制并向公众播放。不仅限于色情行业，任何拥有手机和互联网访问权限的人都可以创造这种形式的性表演。此外，现代大众文化承认现实和日常生活的表现价值。技术进步只会继续使传播和分享日常生活成为可能，从而增加了网上性表现材料的受众以及围绕这些材料产生社区组织的可能性。本文首次分析了这一日益重要和普遍的现象，并将其定义为现实的色情。其主张现实的色情是有偿的色情性工作，尽管其背后的卖淫行为被定为犯罪，有偿色情性工作本身也应该得到第一修正案的承认。本文重新定义了色情制品的内容，并提供了分析这种性表现形式的框架。即只要行为是经过同意的，即有事实上的同意和本质上的自愿，该行为就不应该被剥夺宪法的保护。

The False Promise of MDL Bellwether Reform: How Mandatory Bellwether Trial[1] Consent Would Further Mire Multidistrict Litigation

多地区诉讼（MDL）代表人改革的虚假承诺：强制性代表人审判的同意如何使多地区诉讼进一步陷入困境

作者：Jonathan Steinberg

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-96-number-3/the-false-promise-of-mdl-bellwether-reform-how-mandatory-bellwether-trial-consent-would-further-mire-multidistrict-litigation/

Over one third of all pending cases in the federal court system are part of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) proceeding. Previous and ongoing MDLs include claims stemming from the opioid epidemic, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the National Football League concussion cases, and a myriad of pharmaceutical and medical products liability suits. Both the percentage and sheer number of cases utilizing this form of aggregate litigation have dramatically increased in recent years. Bellwether trials, designed to test the facts and legal theories underpinning many of the consolidated cases, are a key feature of MDLs in facilitating resolution. This Note examines the role of MDL bellwether trials and the potential impact of proposed reforms. Part I surveys the functions of bellwether trials as well as current judicial limitations imposed on the practice. Part II examines proposals that would further restrict the use of MDL bellwether trials: first, a bill from the 115th Congress and second, proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These proposals would require the consent of all parties for an MDL bellwether to ensue. Finally, Part III explores the potential effects of these proposed reforms as well as the discrepancies between their purported aims and the likely impact of their enactment. These proposals would exacerbate the MDL “black hole,” result in less informed settlements, and create more opacity in the MDL process. Principally, they are an attempt to wrest power over procedure to cement defendants’ structural advantage over the MDL.

联邦法院系统中超过三分之一的未决案件是多地区诉讼（Multidistrict Litigation; MDL）程序的一部分。已裁决的和正在进行中的多地区诉讼案件包括源于阿片类药物的流行病案件、深水地平线漏油事件、国家橄榄球联盟脑震荡案件，以及无数制药和医疗产品责任诉讼引起的索赔。近年来，使用这种集体诉讼形式的案件在百分比和绝对数量上都急剧增加。Bellwether审判（即代表人审判）旨在检验许多合并案件所依据的事实和法律理论，是多地区诉讼在促进纠纷解决方面的一个关键特征。本文审查了多地区诉讼代表人审判的作用和拟议改革的潜在影响。第一部分研究了代表人审判的功能以及当前针对这种做法的司法限制。第二部分探讨了进一步限制使用多地区诉讼代表人审判的提案：首先是第115届国会的一项法案，其次是对联邦民事诉讼规则的拟议修正案。这些提案要求将所有当事方同意作为进行多地区诉讼代表人审判的前提。最后，第三部分探讨了这些拟议改革的潜在影响，以及其预期目标与实施后可能产生的影响之间的差异。这些提议将会加剧多地区诉讼的“黑洞”，导致解决方案中的不知情，并在多地区诉讼过程中造成更多不透明，它们主要是一种夺取程序权力的企图，以巩固被告在多地区诉讼中的结构性优势。

译者注

[1] 参见https://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/what-is-a-bellwether-trial-take-that-trial-for-a-test-drive-baby.html

What is a Bellwether Trial?

Basically, a bellwether trial is a trial to indicate future trends in a specific litigation. They are used when a large group of plaintiffs have filed suit based on the same theory or claim and the only feasible way to handle the caseload is through a bellwether trial. In a bellwether trial, a small group of plaintiffs is chosen to represent the group. Those plaintiffs are chosen because their issues are common amongst all the plaintiffs.

什么是代表人审判？

代表人审判是指在特定诉讼中能够暗示未来趋势的审判。当一大群原告基于相同的理论或索赔提起诉讼，而处理案件的唯一可行方法是通过代表人审判时，就会使用代表人审判。在代表人审判中，选择一小群原告来代表整个群体。这些原告被选中是因为他们的问题在所有原告中是共同的。