Hadley Arkes

June 30, 2023

'Dobbs' a Year Later: The Lady in the Hat and the Vase

Hadley Arkes reflects on the year since the overturning of "Roe v. Wade" and unpacks the next steps a brave judge could take in protecting the pre-born.
March 24, 2023

My Warm Up for Judge Duncan—and What Next for Stanford?

Hadley Arkes shares his own experience with student protests at Stanford Law and asks how its administration will respond to the next incident.
February 10, 2023

Is Conservative Jurisprudence Renouncing Moral Reasoning?

Prof. Arkes argues that moral judgments, rather than belonging to legislators instead of judges, are an essential - indeed inescapable - part of the work of a judge, especially in recognizing the most basic facts that bear on their judgments.
January 18, 2023

Born-Alive Act Redux!

Prof. Arkes reflects on his work crafting the Born Alive Act and takes some time to analyze the latest version of the Act, to him the best ever.
October 12, 2022

Protecting Babies Who Survive Abortions Is the First Step

Prof. Hadley Arkes responds in the WSJ explaining how reviving the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could prove the best strategy for Republicans in Congress.
June 24, 2022

After Dobbs: The End of the Beginning

James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes reflects on the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
May 31, 2022

The Conservative Legal Movement at the Edge of Schism

James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes writes for Public Discourse about the future of the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
April 13, 2022

What the Hearings Missed

In the aftermath of Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, Hadley Arkes analyzes the Senate hearings. Despite some well-timed questions, Republicans ultimately missed their chance to put Judge Jackson on the record defending the right to kill unwanted children even after birth.
March 8, 2022

Once More Unto the Breach: Arkes v. Whelan on the Overruling of Roe

In a response to Ed Whelan’s critique of “On Overturning Roe,” Prof. Arkes insists that the moral argument against Roe is the only logical one for judges who believe in the deep wrong of abortion. The pro-life cause rests on objective moral truths, not on value judgments, and as a result does not require judges (as Whelan claims) “to read their own moral convictions into the Constitution.”
Anchoring Truths
Anchoring Truths is a James Wilson Institute project
The James Wilson Institute’s Mission is to restore to a new generation of lawyers, judges, and citizens the understanding of the American Founders about the first principles of our law and the moral grounds of their own rights.
Learn More