Influential theories of law have celebrated judicial reason- giving as furthering a host of democratic values, including judges’ accountability, citizens’ participation in adjudication, and a more accurate and transparent decision-making process. This Article has two main purposes. First, it argues that although reason- giving is important, it is often in tension with other values of the judicial process, such as guidance, sincerity, and efficiency.

When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons—A Comparative Law Approach, 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 483 (2015)

The French Conseil constitutionnel and Gender, in Constitutional Heroines? Female Chief Justices and Constitutional Court Presidents in Comparative Perspective (Erin Delaney & Rosalind Dixon, eds., Elgar, forthcoming).

Judicial Colonialism Today: The French Overseas Courts, 8 J. Law & Courts 247 (2020).

Symposium Introduction: What Can We Learn from Transnational Courts About Judicial Diversity?, 34 Conn. J. Int’l L. 278 (2020).

Net Raciality: How Racial Bias Pervades the Digital Space, JOTWELL (March 18, 2019) (reviewing Catherine Powell, Race and Rights in the Digital Age, 112 Am. J. Int’l L. Unbound 339 (2018)).

Judicial Diversity in France: The Unspoken and the Unspeakable, 43 Law & Soc. Inquiry 1542 (2018).

Decolonizing Comparative Law, JOTWELL (March 27, 2018) (reviewing Sherally Munshi, Comparative Law and Decolonizing Critique, 65 Am. J. Comp. L. 207 (2017), available at SSRN).

The Right to Food, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press Online, 2017).

The Comparative Constitutional Law of Milk—India and the United States, 7 Indian J. Const. L. 1 (2017).

Of Milk and the Constitution, 40 Harv. J.L. & Gender 115 (2017).

Continuing Impacts of French Legal Culture on the International Court of Justice, in Comparative International Law 181 (Anthea Roberts, Paul Stephan, Mila Versteeg & Pierre-Hugues Verdier, eds., Oxford University Press, 2017).

The French Prosecutor as Judge. The Carpenter’s Mistake?, in Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-National Study 109 (Maximo Langer & David Sklansky, eds, Cambridge University Press, 2017).

Judges or Hostages? The Bureaucratization of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, in European Union Law Stories: Contextual and Critical Histories of European Jurisprudence 58 (Bill Davies & Fernanda Nicola, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2017).

The Linguistic Design of Multinational Courts. The French Capture, 14 Int’l J. Const. L. 498 (2016).

The French Case for Requiring Juries to Give Reasons. Safeguarding Defendants or Guarding the Judges? in Comparative Criminal Procedure 422 (Jacqueline E. Ross & Steven C. Thaman, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).

When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons—A Comparative Law Approach, 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 483 (2015).

Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Deliberations: Two Models of Judicial Deliberations in Courts of Last Resort, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 401 (2014).

La verdad en las decisiones judiciales—¿una división entre common law y derecho codificado? [Truth in Adjudication—A Civil/Common Law Divide], in 3 Derecho y Verdad, Concepciones 199 (German Sucar & Jorge Cerdio Herran, eds.), Tirant Lo Blanch, Valencia, Spain (2015).

Les cours souveraines et leur nouveau public [High Courts and Their New Public], 8 Les Cahiers de la Justice 187 (2014).

La motivation des décisions de justice, entre épistémologie sociale et théorie du droit. Le cas des Cours souveraines et des Cours constitutionnelles [A Social Epistemology and Jurisprudence Approach to Judicial Reason-Giving. The Case of Supreme and Constitutional Courts] (with Pasquale Pasquino), Monograph internally published by the Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice (2013).

The Social Epistemology of Public Institutions, in New Waves in Philosophy of Law 185 (Maksymilian del Mar ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

La sincérité peut-elle être une norme juridique? [Is There a Legal Norm of Sincerity?], 54 Archives de Philosophie du Droit 243 (2011).

Reasons for Reasons, in Approaches to Legal Rationality 119 (20 Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science Springer Series, Dov M. Gabbay et al. eds., 2010).

Sincerity and Reason Giving: When May Legal Decision-Makers Lie?, 59 DePaul L. Rev. 1091 (2010).

The Rule of Law as the Rule of Reasons, 96 Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 1 (2010) (trans. Chinese. 22 Peking U. L.J. 354 (2010)).

L’unité de la justification à l’épreuve de la justification juridique [Justificatory Unification and Legal Justification], in L’Unité des Sciences Nouvelles Perspectives 91 (Thierry Martin ed., 2009).

L’épreuve orale. Les magistrats administratifs face aux audiences de reconduite à la frontière [The Oral Trial. French Administrative Judges Faced with Deportation Hearings], 72 Droit et Société 387 (2009).

Du justiciable à l’acteur du droit: la perception de la justice aux États-Unis [From Litigant to Legal Actor: Perceptions of Justice in the United States], 31 Lettre de la Mission de Recherche Droit, et Justice 11 (2008).

Reason Giving in Court Practice: Decision-Makers at the Crossroads, 14 Colum. J. Eur. L. 257 (2008).