Kant's Point of Law

It is generally agreed that what Kant means by quid juris in the first sentence of the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding is the question whether the claim at hand is legally valid, and that what he means by quid facti is a "neutral foil" to quid juris. I defend an alternative interpretation, according to which quid juris is the question whether certain facts are sufficient for the legal validity of the claim at hand, and quid facti is the question: what are the facts? This interpretation is supported by the way that the terms quaestio juris and quaestio facti were used in the Roman-German legal tradition. It is also supported by Kant's claim that "jurists . . . demand proof of both," and by the structure of the legal deductions in Kant's own writings. Finally, it sheds light on the aim and structure of the Deduction itself.