The exploration of the Bell v. Maryland case is important because it touches on such important subjects as differences in the interpretation of the law, legal history, and morality in the justice system. In this case, analyzing the role of morals can provide insight into the unique position of morals in the decision-making process. This essay will define whether morals played an important role in the majority decision in this case and suggest what Dworkin and Hart’s opinions about the case might be.
Firstly, the majority decision allowed morals to play a significant role in the decision-making process in this case. The initial case considered the students’ act of protest as breaking into private property. Therefore, students’ refusal to leave the restaurant after they were given a warning can be considered a violation of private property. However, restaurants are purposed to provide food for the general public, which makes them a place of public accommodation. Furthermore, the demand to leave the restaurant was made not by the owner but by a service staff representative. The use of such arguments for overturning the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals would not involve the component of morals in the decision-making process.
However, the decision was motivated by the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the division of society into classes with varying degrees of protection depending on the individual’s race. Furthermore, the decision added that the presence of students on the restaurant territory was consistent with their rights to receive the service and was not illegal. Therefore, minimizing the importance of the fact that the students stayed in the restaurant despite the prohibition of the owner’s representative demonstrates that the decision was motivated by morals.
Next, one of the dissents, Justice Black, also emphasized morals in arguments for his position. However, he prioritized the importance of issues of violation of private property in the case. Black explained that the Fourteenth Amendment does not obligate private business owners to serve all customers, and they have the right to choose which clients to serve. Moreover, as the protection of private property presents one of the main pillars of the foundations of modern society, which allows maintaining peaceful interactions between civilians, its morals were more applicable to this case.
Furthermore, considering Dworkin’s opinion on the case, based on the readings, it is possible to suggest that the author would oppose the decision. Dworkin’s opinion centers on the concept of the dual nature of text interpretation in legal analysis. Therefore, the author explains that the interpretation of previous decisions may lean toward a literary direction. Dworkin argues that literary interpretation of a text deprives the text of important details in an attempt to answer one central question. Therefore, the author explains that “a judge’s duty is to interpret the legal history he finds, not to invent a better history” (Gottlieb et al. 510). Thus, the prioritization of morals in the judge’s decision-making can be acknowledged as a literary interpretation of the case from Dworkin’s perspective. On the contrary, Hart explained that laws as one of “different types” of rules made by humans are closely related to morality (Gottlieb et al. 99). Hart views law as the continuation of morals and encourages the presence of morals in the legal system. Therefore, it is likely that Hart would agree with the majority decision.
In conclusion, this essay explored the role of morals in the decision of the Bell v. Maryland case. The essay defined that morals played a significant role in the decision-making process by minimizing some important details in the case. Furthermore, by analyzing readings from Dworkin and Hart, the essay determined that Hart would be on the side of the majority and Dworkin would be on the side of the dissents in this case.
Work Cited
Gottlieb, Stephen E., et al. Jurisprudence Cases and Materials: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law and Its Applications. 3rd ed., LexisNexis, 2015.