Legal Positivism in the Case of Florida v. Jardines Open Access

Sigalow, Martin Walsh (2015)

Permanent URL:


Legal Positivism is the claim that morality need not be tied to law. There are many versions of positivism, each appealing to different conditions for their validity. One particular theory, Omega Positivism, stands out as the best of the competing theories in terms of criteria many positivists share. Florida v. Jardines is a United States Supreme Court case in Fourth Amendment law. The appropriate ruling in that case takes into account principles of political morality infused into the law, according to Omega Positivism. The majority opinion did not note those principles as meaningful, however, and remains inadequate. A truly positivist reading of that decision, that is, an Omega Positivist reading, demands a re-evaluation of that case.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1-3

Chapter One: Criteria 4-16

Chapter Two: Conceptions 17-78

Chapter Three: Cases 79-121

Conclusion 122-124

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
  • English
Research Field
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Last modified

Primary PDF

Supplemental Files