With No Reason: Allowing Courts to Decide Cases without Explaining their Decisions

Contrary to the consensus that judges must provide reasons for their decisions, this article suggests that, subject to court approval, litigants in civil disputes should be allowed to agree to a non-reasoned ruling. Drawing on insights from legal and political philosophy, as well as behavioral law and economics, the article first discusses the pros and cons of judicial reason-giving. It then argues that the proposed reform will ease the burden on courts, and discusses ways to mitigate the downsides of non-reasoned decisions. Additionally, it explores the expected effect of the proposed reform on the litigants' behavior and on judges' decision-making.