William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
Abstract
This article explores the concept of moral outrage as a substantive and remedial element within judicial opinions. Rudolph addresses three key questions: What do judges mean when they express moral outrage in their opinions? Should they express such outrage at all? If so, under what circumstances? Drawing from legal philosophy, particularly hermeneutics, the article argues that judges should express moral outrage in cases involving historically marginalized or vulnerable communities at risk of being silenced. The work discusses various areas of law, including water law, tort law, and employment discrimination, and suggests that moral outrage should be recognized as an independent remedy. Rudolph contends that expressions of judicial moral outrage are essential to addressing ongoing or potential injustices, particularly in the current political climate marked by increasing threats to vulnerable groups such as women and religious minorities.
