Pragmatism prioritizes **consequences and administrability**. Judges choose interpretations that **work best** for the legal system and society, especially when text or precedent is underdeterminate. Balancing tests weigh competing interests explicitly.
# Core commitments - **Outcome sensitivity**: real-world effects matter. - **Administrability**: choose rules courts and parties can actually apply. - **Incrementalism**: narrow holdings; avoid needless disruption.
# Methods & tools - **Interest balancing** (e.g., costs vs benefits, speech vs regulation). - Narrow tailoring; **avoidance** of sweeping dicta.
# Strengths claimed - **Problem-solving orientation**; reduces unintended harms. - **Flexibility** to tailor remedies and standards.
# Common critiques - **Unpredictability**; outcomes may depend on judges’ policy views. - **Weak constraint**; balancing can be malleable.
# Close contrasts - Textualism and Originalism emphasize constraint through text/history; pragmatism emphasizes **effects**.