Why Judicial Humility Is Not Weakness—but a Duty
There is a quiet truth rarely acknowledged within the judicial system: justice sometimes requires judges to admit they were wrong. Not on appeal. Not years later after reputations are ruined or families fractured. But in their own cases, when the error becomes clear.
That kind of humility is rare.
Which is why the opening lines of a recent federal opinion by Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation, are so striking:
“A smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong. Wisdom does not always find me, so I try to embrace it when it does—even if it comes late, as it did here.”
With those words, Judge Bibas did something almost unheard of: he openly acknowledged that his prior summary-judgment ruling was wrong—and he corrected it himself. No appellate mandate. No motion compelling reconsideration. No procedural escape hatch. Just a judge, the record, and the law.
That is what judicial integrity looks like when practiced, not merely preached.
Correcting Error Is Part of the Job
Judge Bibas did not stop at poetic humility. He explained why correction was necessary and how he came to realize it:
- He studied the record more closely
- He recognized that his earlier analysis “had not gone far enough”
- He vacated portions of his own prior opinion
- And he explicitly revised his legal reasoning, explaining where and why he had been mistaken
At multiple points, he uses phrases that are almost never seen in judicial opinions:
- “I wrongly viewed…”
- “I no longer think that is so.”
- “That belated insight explains my change of heart.”
These are not rhetorical flourishes. They are acknowledgments of fallibility—and affirmations that the legitimacy of the judiciary depends on a willingness to confront it.
The Cultural Resistance to Being Wrong
Contrast this with what litigants routinely encounter instead:
- Errors reframed as “discretion”
- Factual disputes dismissed as “immaterial”
- Misstatements preserved through procedural doctrines
- And challenges labeled as attacks on judicial independence rather than requests for accountability
Within that culture, admitting error is treated as weakness, and correction is viewed as institutional risk.
Judge Bibas’s opinion quietly demolishes that assumption.
He shows that judicial authority is strengthened—not undermined—by transparency and self-correction.
A Rare Minnesota Example: Judge Timothy McManus
In our own experience, we have seen this level of judicial humility only once.
During a harassment restraining order (HRO) hearing involving my wife, Judge Timothy McManus paused mid-proceeding, recognized that his initial ruling was incorrect, and overruled himself on the record—based solely on a request for reconsideration by counsel.
No defensiveness.
No procedural evasion.
Just a correction, made in real time, because justice required it.
For litigants, that moment mattered more than any favorable outcome. It demonstrated that the court was listening—and that fairness had not been subordinated to ego.
What Judge Bibas Gets Right—Beyond the Opening Paragraph
Several deeper themes from Judge Bibas’s opinion are especially relevant to systemic reform:
1. Judges Must Re-engage the Record
He emphasizes that his shift came from closer study, not new evidence. This directly rebuts the idea that trial judges are powerless once they rule.
2. Legal Certainty Is Not Served by Entrenched Error
Bibas rejects the notion that stability requires sticking with flawed reasoning. Instead, he recognizes that error ossified is injustice multiplied.
3. Authority Does Not Depend on Infallibility
By admitting mistake, he does not weaken his role. He models judicial confidence grounded in law, not pride.
4. Timing Matters
Though he notes the correction came “late,” he still acts—implicitly acknowledging that late justice is better than none, and far better than silent preservation of error.
Another quote from Judge Bibas illustrates this concept perfectly:
“Judicial independence does not mean never being wrong. It means being willing to correct error when the law—and justice—demand it.”
The Question the Judiciary Must Answer
If a federal judge can revise his own summary-judgment ruling after acknowledging error—
If a Minnesota district court judge can overrule himself mid-hearing—
Then the real question is not whether judges can correct injustice.
It is why so many choose not to.
Judicial humility is not an act of grace.
It is a professional responsibility.
And until it becomes the norm rather than the exception, stories like Judge Bibas’s opinion—and Judge McManus’s ruling—will stand out not because they are remarkable, but because they are rare.
🔗 For more on judicial ethics and court reform in Minnesota, visit https://justice-denied.org.