「窄判」與「淺判」的司法智慧──「傑作蛋糕店訴科羅拉多州民權委員會」案判解的啟示

Narrow and Shallow Judicial Decisions of U.S. Supreme Court－Values of the Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

「司法極簡主義」由美國學者桑斯坦教授所提倡，主張憲法訴訟中的法官以「窄判」與「淺判」為主要的判解風格，透過一次一案式逐案審查機制調和權利衝突。在美國憲法判例歷史上，典範的寬深判決風格畢竟有限，平凡而簡約的「窄判」與「淺判」亦能展現法官的司法智慧。與美國最高法院對「傑作蛋糕店訴科羅拉多州民權委員會」一案作出終局判決，根據憲法第一修正案判決州政府敗訴，審理本案的九位法官共撰寫出四份支持意見與一份反對意見。六位法官以「窄判」風格下判，其餘三位法官傾向於擴張宗教言論自由的範圍來保護原告，撰寫的判由呈現一定的「寬判」風格。雖然原告菲力普斯在州進行的訴訟中均敗訴，但是最高法院多數意見認定科羅拉多州行政聽證程式對原告的宗教信仰有敵視傾向，行政執法程式有瑕疵，甘迺迪法官與卡根法官認定科羅拉多州《反歧視法》限制原告的宗教自由。判例法機制下，美國法官經常採用「窄淺」風格的判決說理方式作出判決，運用案例區分技術、配置舉證責任影響實體結果等技藝來溫和、漸近地改變，透過先例的累積為未來的寬深判決奠立基礎。

U.S Supreme Court made the final decision on Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in June 2018, State government missed the case because of defeating in arguing the first Amendment. When freedom of religious speech confronts with Colorado’s AntiDiscrimination Act, the Christian shopkeeper (Jack Phillips) was sued by the gay couples and lost his case in State judicial procedures. Nevertheless, majority of Supreme Courts still support Phillips when they find State government is hostility to his religious belief, and State administrative judicial hearing process also has made some mistakes. Justice Kennedy made decision that AntiDiscrimination has bad influence on Phillips’s religious freedom. Nine Justices wrote four concurring judgments and one opposite judgment finally. In the system of case law, U.S. Judges often write narrow and shallow judgment. Slowly and gradually change U.S. legal rules by accumulating cases gradually, distinguishing different cases and relocating the burden of proof, thereof these characters prescribe U.S. case-law tradition. “Narrow and shallow” writing is better for Chinese judges than deep and wide. We can find good values by having perceptions on U.S. caselaw spirit. If a Judge wants to write a “wide-and-deep” judgment, he firstly must learn to consider the values of “narrow-and-shallow” stylish decisions.