In a series of law review articles published between 1905 and 1923, Roscoe Pound of the Harvard Law School criticized the prevailing assumptions of what he called “mechanical jurisprudence.” He denied that just legal results would be produced by logical deductions from axiomatic premises about the laws of economics or the structure of society and pointed out that such axioms reflected more a judge's individual biases than they did universal truths. In this criticism, Pound echoed the skepticism of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, especially as expressed in his dissent in Lochner v. New York (1905).
In place of this discredited formalism that masked conservative political prejudices, Pound called for what he termed a “sociological jurisprudence.” Such a judicial outlook would recognize that law is not an autonomous collection of self‐contained and self‐referential rules. Instead, the judge would seek enlightenment from disciplines outside law, including the political and social sciences. Judges would become more sensitive to the actual impact of legal doctrine. They would strive for an equitable application of law to reach just results in particular cases. The “Brandeis brief,” introduced by Louis D. Brandeis in Muller v. Oregon (1908), exemplified the approach advocated by Pound.
Sociological jurisprudence is often regarded as an early expression of the movement known as Legal Realism, but there were significant differences between the two. Realists like Karl Llewellyn, while acknowledging their debt to sociological jurisprudence, found themselves engaged in mutual criticism with Pound, who was skeptical of the premises of Realism.
— William M. Wiecek
