Almas Khan (University of Mississippi – School of Law) has posted Metacritique and Black Lives Matter Judicial Opinions (Law and Critique / Recht und Kritik, edited by Greta Olson et al., 2025, pp. 309–16) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This short essay theorizes and analyzes examples of Black Lives Matter judicial opinions.
And from the introduction:
Judge Reeves’s opinion epitomizes a trend in U.S. jurisprudence during the Black Lives Matter era beginning in 2013, with judges using the genre of the judicial opinion not solely to explain and apply the law, but to engage in metacritique. The opinions are a key site to consider how criteria traditionally used to deem judicial opinions canonical have constituted the form as a white space. Black Lives Matter opinions challenge assumptions about the judicial opinion as an authoritative, insular, and impersonal form reinforcing an oppressive status quo. By “breaking the fourth wall” through formal innovations, the opinions collectively instigate readers to re-envision legal epistemology, drawing on insights from critical legal research and other disciplines; the foundations of the U.S. common law system; the purposes of judicial opinions as a quintessential legal genre; and legal education’s role in molding future lawyers and shaping the law. Interdisciplinarity has been integral to Black Lives Matter opinions, which commonly cite African American literature, apply insights from narratology, and present inclusive histories. Through tapping into Black intellectual traditions, the opinions embody Black experiences and speak to an audience beyond elite legal circles. As social movement lawyering’s influence has extended to the judicial opinion, the form has been democratized to promote racial equality.
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum