PICTURED ABOVE: A soccer field viewed from above, with a gavel at midfield.
Bolch Judicial Institute Director Kim Mueller reflects on what soccer’s final whistle can teach us about judicial independence, fair process, and respect for lawful outcomes.
One of the most solitary moments for a judge comes just before announcing a difficult decision.
You know someone in the courtroom will disagree and may leave believing justice was not done. Sometimes both sides will. You also know something else: public opinion has nothing to do with your job.
During my years as a federal trial judge, I experienced an important truth firsthand: the legitimacy of our courts has never depended on everyone agreeing with every decision. It has always depended on confidence that judges decide cases impartially, according to established law, rather than political pressure or popular sentiment.
As the excitement surrounding this summer’s FIFA World Cup has settled, I have found myself continuing to think about the principles it illustrated so well.
Like every World Cup before it, this year’s tournament produced breathtaking performances, unforgettable drama, and spirited debate over penalties, red cards, video-assisted review, and disciplinary decisions. Throughout the tournament, passionate fans debated controversial calls, and I found myself asking questions that extended well beyond soccer.
Who should make the final decision?
And should that decision remain independent of outside pressure?
Whether on a soccer field or in a courtroom, the answer is the same. The legitimacy of the outcome cannot depend on whether everyone agrees with the latest call. It depends on confidence that decisions are made fairly, impartially, and according to rules that apply equally to everyone.
In that respect, a courtroom and a soccer pitch have more in common than most people might think.
Fans fill stadiums hoping for a win, just as family members, friends and supporters often fill courtrooms hoping for a particular outcome. But referees and judges share the same responsibility. They are not there to satisfy the crowd. They are there to apply the rules.
Neither system is perfect. Referees make mistakes. Judges do, too. That is why both systems provide opportunities for review. Soccer has video replay, disciplinary panels, and appeals. Our legal system has appellate courts that review decisions when errors are alleged.
Eventually, however, every contest reaches an endpoint. A final whistle blows. A final judgment is entered. At that point, the process has done what it was designed to do.
That doesn’t mean people lose the right to disagree.
Lawyers should continue advancing reasonable legal arguments. Citizens are free to criticize a judicial decision they believe is wrong, civilly, after reading the decision in full. Athletes, coaches, and governing bodies can advocate for changes to the rules of their sport when experience shows improvements are warranted.
But there is an important difference between disagreeing with a decision and rejecting the legitimacy of the institution that made it.
Healthy institutions welcome criticism. They become stronger through thoughtful examination and, when appropriate, reform. What they cannot withstand is the expectation that unpopular decisions should change simply because the loudest voices demand a different outcome.
That principle was often very real during my years on the federal bench.
I sometimes had to make decisions that profoundly affected people’s lives. In one case, desperate parents sought to keep their child on life support after physicians concluded further treatment could not change the outcome. The law required me to decide the case based on the governing legal standards, not on the heartbreak filling the courtroom.
No judge welcomes those moments. But judges do not take an oath to produce popular outcomes. We take an oath to faithfully apply the law to the facts before us, without fear or favor.
Some of my decisions were affirmed on appeal. Others were reversed. When they were reversed, I accepted those decisions and applied the guidance I had been given. Respect for the rule of law requires nothing less.
Every sporting event ends with winners and losers. So does every lawsuit. The true measure of the institutions we have created to resolve those disputes is not whether our side prevails. It is whether we continue to believe the rules are fair enough to follow when our side comes up short.
The World Cup has now crowned its champion. Millions celebrated. Others undoubtedly wondered whether a different call or a different ruling might have changed history.
Yet what endures is not universal agreement about every decision. It is confidence that the game was governed by established rules, applied by officials entrusted to enforce them fairly, with an orderly process for review when questions arose.
Our courts deserve that same confidence.
The integrity of the competition depends not on eliminating disagreement, but on providing a fair process for resolving it, then respecting the result.
The rules of fair play and our republic ask no less of us.
–––
Want to learn more about our courts and the rule of law? The Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke Law offers a self-paced, online course, Civics Break. Learn more about the course on our website.