Recommended Citation
Eric Schnapper, Honest Belief and Proof of Unlawful Motive, 71 Buff. L. Rev. 769 (2023), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/1147
Publication Title
Buffalo Law Review
Keywords
honest belief, objective validity, bad faith, evidence
Document Type
Article
Abstract
A large number of federal statutes impose liability on a defendant if it acted with a forbidden motivation. Intent is also central to the meaning of a number of constitutional provisions, including many applications of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The large volume of litigation under these provisions does not turn on doctrinal differences about the meaning of intent or purpose, but on disputes about the types of evidence that are and are not sufficient to establish the existence of the forbidden purpose. Those standards, as a practical matter, determine the efficacy of the prohibition at issue and can illustrate tactics which a potential defendant can use to evade compliance.
In litigation about whether such an unlawful motive existed, defendants frequently seek to avoid liability by contending that their action, even if unwarranted, was based on an honest (although perhaps mistaken) belief. The socalled honest belief doctrine has been raised in a wide variety of circumstances, and there are a large number of decisions evaluating that issue.
Some commentators have strongly criticized the honest belief doctrine, but it is a well-established part of litigation in a wide range of fields. For judges and litigants, what matters is when the doctrine could apply, what types of evidence would be probative of whether the requisite honest belief existed, and how to analyze a number of recurring areas of confusion.
Part I explains the difference between a defendant's claim that the factual premise of its action was correct (the explanation was "objectively valid") and a defendant's claim that its action, even if based on an incorrect factual premise, was the result of an honest belief. Part II describes the types of evidence that courts have recognized can demonstrate that a defendant did not actually hold an asserted belief, including whether it is significant that a claimed belief was unreasonable. Part III summarizes the various ways in which an asserted belief could be shown not to be honest, including why deficiencies in a defendant's investigation may be relevant. Part IV explains how courts should determine whether the issue in a particular case is objective validity or honest belief. Part V sets out the types of situations in which the existence of an honest belief would not preclude a finding of liability and discusses whether an honest belief instruction would be appropriate in a jury trial.