Starting in the 1920s, the traditional conception of what appellate judges were actually doing when they made common law became the subject of sustained critique. Often collectively labeled as the Legal Realists, or the Legal Realist Movement, those advancing this critique aggressively challenged the formalist claim that the lawmaking work of appellate judges was fundamentally an objective, value-neutral, and preference-free enterprise that relied heavily upon formal deductive logic to select among possible versions of legal doctrine.

Instead, the legal realists argued that no matter how much appellate court opinions presented in realist terms the ultimate choices being made, those choices were nearly always the product of the judges’ reliance upon personal social judgments and preferences. They asserted that there was, in fact, little objective, detached, or scientific in these judges’ decisions to make one or another possible version of legal doctrine the binding and authoritative law of the jurisdiction.

During the middle period of the twentieth century, the legal realist critique of traditional formalism came to enjoy a consensus among the professional and academic legal community. Little sincere belief in the formalist paradigm remained by the last half of the twentieth century.