IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-732628.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should Like Cases Be Decided Alike? A Formal Analysis of Formal Equality

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin B. Johnson
  • Richard Jordan

Abstract

The idea of formal equality—the principle that we should treat like cases alike—is a cornerstone of political and legal theory that supporters have placed at the heart of theories of justice since Aristotle. Critics have rejected it as vacuous or a tool of oppression. Despite its central importance, formal equality has received little formal analysis. In this article, we formalize the like-cases maxim and explore its implications. We show that both Aristotle’s principle of proportionality and Dworkin’s principle of integrity can be directly derived from formal equality. It is therefore not vacuous, but formal equality is more demanding than its supporters suggest. It ends up deciding far more cases than we would want, and it decides them in ways most philosophers and legal theorists would find untenable. It is therefore not clear what place it ought to occupy either in political philosophy or in jurisprudence. [J]ustice demands, wherever that concept is found, that like men be treated alike in like conditions. Why, I do not know; the fact is given. (Llewellyn 2012, p. 43)

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin B. Johnson & Richard Jordan, 2025. "Should Like Cases Be Decided Alike? A Formal Analysis of Formal Equality," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 83-115.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/732628
    DOI: 10.1086/732628
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/732628
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/732628
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/732628?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/732628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.