IS THE SUPREME-COURT AN EDUCATIVE INSTITUTION

A wide variety of scholars agree that the Supreme Court's responsibili ties include a teaching function. Despite the popularity of this idea, it raises perplexing theoretical questions. What does the Court teach ? Why does America's ''marketplace of ideas'' require a government tea cher? Are educative responsibilities consistent with the Court's respo nsibility to apply the law? In this Article, Professor Eisgruber devel ops an integrated answer to these questions. Professor Eisgruber argue s that the Court teaches not by propounding scholarly doctrines, but b y offering ad hominem lessons capable of inspiring Americans to honor their values. He suggests that such ad hominem lessons might become ra re because they are not directly relevant to the selection of competin g policies. Professor Eisgruber then examines the institutional incent ives that operate on the Court, and argues that these incentives both enable and induce Justices to convey occasional effective lessons abou t constitutional principle. These incentives, however, vary with the t heory of constitutional interpretation adopted by the Justices. Illumi nating his argument through examples drawn from cases like West Virgin ia v. Barnette, Brown v. Board of Education, and Cohen v. California, Professor Eisgruber concludes that the Supreme Court's educative respo nsibilities inevitably compromise the Court's performance of its other duties.