Hubbry Logo
OriginalismOriginalismMain
Open search
Originalism
Community hub
Originalism
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Originalism
Originalism
Originalism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States by Howard Chandler Christy
Judicial interpretation
Forms
General rules of interpretation
General theories of interpretation
International

Originalism is a legal theory in the United States which bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning.[1] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times.[2][3] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism.[4]

Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia.[5] Over time, originalism became more popular and gained mainstream acceptance by 2020.[6]

Originalism was championed most prominently by Justice Antonin Scalia, whose opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) became a defining—and divisive—statement of originalist reasoning. Critics, including many professional historians, have argued that Heller relied on selective or flawed historical analysis. Despite such criticism, originalism has grown in prominence since Scalia’s tenure, especially with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during the Trump administration. The philosophy played a central role in major rulings such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade. In response, some scholars and jurists, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, have advanced ideas of “progressive originalism.” Meanwhile, critics contend that the Court’s reliance on history has become inconsistent and politically driven, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor remarking that “history matters to this Court only when it is convenient.”[7]

History

[edit]

Proponents of originalism argue that originalism was the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence.[8][9][10]

Modern

[edit]

Jurist Robert Bork is credited with proposing the first modern theory of originalism in his 1971 law review article, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, published in The Yale Law Journal.[11] He noted that without specification in a constitutional text, judges are free to input their own values while interpreting a constitution. Bork proposed one principled method to avoid this: for judges to "take from the document rather specific values that text or history show the framers actually to have intended and which are capable of being translated into principled rules."[10] By following the original meaning, an originalist Supreme Court would therefore "need make no fundamental value choices," and its rulings would be restrained.[12]

Law professor Raoul Berger expanded on the theory in Government by Judiciary (1977), positing that the rulings by the Warren and Burger Courts were illegitimate, as they deviated from the Constitution's original intent.[13] In 1985, Edwin Meese, United States Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, advanced a constitutional jurisprudence based on original intent in a speech before the American Bar Association, a jurisprudence that "would produce defensible principles of government that would not be tainted by ideological predilection."[14][15] A few months after the speech, Justice William Brennan rejected Meese's view, claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States was indiscernible, and that text could only be understood in present terms.[16][17] Later, in 1988 Ronald Reagan would advocate in favor of originalism during a speech at the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies.[18]

During the 1980s, liberal members of the legal academy criticized the original intent formulated by Bork, Berger, and Meese.[19] Serious opposition, beginning in law schools, evolved from debates in singular law review articles to books.[20] In 1980, Paul Brest, who later became the dean of Stanford Law School, published "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding,"[21] an article whose criticism of originalism proved formative and influential.[22] Brest argued that a collective intent among the Founding Fathers of the United States was nonexistent and attempting to do so would be extremely difficult.[23] He also posited that historical changes between the time of adoption to the present made originalism inapplicable in areas such as free speech, freedom of religion, federalism, and gender discrimination.[24] Other scholars of the period adopted and expanded Brest's critiques, including H. Jefferson Powell and Ronald Dworkin.[25] Brest and Powell suggested versions of originalism that sought higher purposes than a specific framer's intent, leading to a shift in the dominant form of originalism from original intent to the original public understanding.[26]

The debate grew more heated with the failed Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1986[27] with the 1990s seeing originalism becoming a broadly endorsed view in the conservative legal movement. The Department of Justice under the Ronald Reagan administration played an important role in lending legitimacy to originalism in the 1980s.[28][29][30][31]

Types

[edit]

In May 2024, conservative justices on the Supreme Court are reported to be considering new alternative interpretations of originalism.[32]

Original intent

[edit]

The historical arguments made by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education relied entirely on historical evidence of the views of Madison and Jefferson and the appropriateness of interpreting the Establishment Clause based on that evidence.[33] Edwin Meese once remarked that Black's record was evidence that "jurisprudence of original intention is not some recent conservative ideological creation".[34]

Original public understanding

[edit]
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (pictured) was a firm believer in originalism.

Original public understanding originalism bases the meaning of a constitutional provision on how the public which ratified it would have generally understood it to mean.[26][35]: 435  Antonin Scalia was one of its most prominent theorists.[36][37][35]: 78–92, 393, 435 

The conservative originalist movement spearheaded by Raoul Berger in the 1980s was a call for judicial restraint but over the years important differences have developed among originalist scholars.[38] Justice Amy Coney Barrett explains:

A faithful judge resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge’s own political preference; judges who give into that temptation exceed the limits of their power by holding a statute unconstitutional when it is not. That was the heart of the originalist critique of the Warren and Burger Courts. At the same time, fidelity will inevitably require a court to hold some statutes unconstitutional.[39]: 82 

Barrett, who has been described as a protégé of Scalia's, said at her confirmation hearing that she interprets the Constitution "as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it."[40][41]

Debate

[edit]

The originalism debate has divided the American public since the school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education.[42] Justices Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches.[43][44]

Critics

[edit]

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a frequent critic of conservative originalism, argues that some aspects of the constitution were intentionally broad and vague to allow for future generations to interpret them along with the times.[45]

Michael Waldman argues that originalism is a new concept, and not one espoused by the founders.[46]

According to a 2021 paper in the Columbia Law Review, the Founding Fathers did not include a nondelegation doctrine in the Constitution and saw nothing wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory, contrary to the claims of some originalists.[47]

Columbia Law School legal scholar Jamal Greene argues that originalism is remarkably unpopular outside the United States (including Canada, South Africa, India, Israel, and most of Europe), where judicial minimalism or textualism are the recommended responses to judicial activism.[48]

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. described originalism as "arrogance cloaked as humility"[49] during a 1985 speech at Georgetown University. In this speech, he also stated “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers", and that politicians that claim to do so are motivated purely by political reasons, as they “have no familiarity with the historical record."

Harvard Law School legal scholar Richard H. Fallon Jr. argues at length that the Supreme Court Justices who claim to be Originalists actually apply Originalism in a highly selective manner "which typically abets substantively conservative decisionmaking."[50]

[edit]

International law and originalism

[edit]

Many Originalists reject any consideration of International law (with an exception for British law before 1791).[citation needed] Antonin Scalia wrote that "We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding. . . . Where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution."[51]

Strict constructionism

[edit]
Main article: Strict constructionism

Scalia differentiated the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that he uses a cane means he walks with a cane (because, strictly speaking, this is not what he uses a cane means).[52] Scalia averred that he was "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be"; he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute".[53]

Legal scholar Randy Barnett asserts that originalism is a theory of interpretation and that constructionism is only appropriate when deriving the original intent proves difficult.[54]

Declarationism

[edit]

Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence.[55] During the 1860s, Senator Charles Sumner heralded declarationism as justifying all human rights legislation without the need for the ultimately ratified Reconstruction Amendments.[56] Harry V. Jaffa and Clarence Thomas have been cited as proponents of this school of thought.[55]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Originalism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Originalism is a theory of constitutional interpretation that posits the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's text is fixed by its original meaning—the understanding of reasonable persons informed by the text's linguistic usage and context at the time of ratification—and that judges must apply that fixed meaning in contemporary cases. This approach distinguishes itself from living constitutionalism by rejecting the idea that constitutional provisions evolve with societal changes or judicial policy preferences, instead aiming to constrain judicial discretion through fidelity to enacted law. Emerging prominently in the 1970s and 1980s as a reaction to perceived judicial overreach during the era, originalism gained traction through scholars like and , who criticized non-originalist methods for enabling judges to impose personal values under the guise of interpretation. Prominent advocates on the U.S. have included Justice , who championed originalism as essential to preserving democratic accountability by limiting courts to enforcing the as written rather than as desired, alongside Justices and . Over time, the theory evolved from focusing on framers' subjective intentions to emphasizing objective public meaning, addressing earlier critiques of indeterminacy in ascertaining intent. This methodological shift has informed landmark decisions, such as those overturning precedents deemed inconsistent with original understandings, thereby restoring constitutional text to primacy over evolving judicial doctrines. Despite its influence, originalism faces scholarly for challenges in historical fact-finding, potential selectivity in , and rigidity that may hinder adaptation to unforeseen modern contexts, though proponents counter that such issues plague non-originalist approaches equally and that empirical historical methods can mitigate them. Critics, often from academic circles with documented ideological skews toward progressive interpretations, argue it masks conservative policy outcomes, yet originalism's emphasis on verifiable textual and historical constraints offers a causal bulwark against subjective .

Core Principles

Definition and Philosophical Foundations

Originalism posits that the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to its original public meaning—the understanding held by reasonable persons at the time of its ratification in 1788 or, for amendments, at the time of their adoption. This approach rejects the notion that constitutional provisions evolve with contemporary societal values, instead fixing the document's legal constraints to reflect the sovereign will of the ratifying public. Proponents argue this method aligns with the Constitution's status as , where meaning derives from enacted text rather than subjective judicial updates. Philosophically, originalism rests on a commitment to the , emphasizing predictability, restraint on unelected judges, and fidelity to democratic processes. By anchoring interpretation in historical evidence such as debates, dictionaries from the founding era, and public usage, it constrains judicial that could otherwise substitute personal preferences for enacted law. Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading advocate, described originalism as the "lesser evil" compared to non-originalist approaches, which invite judges to impose modern moral or prudential judgments, undermining and eroding public trust in the judiciary. This foundation draws from Enlightenment principles of and written constitutions as mechanisms to bind rulers, ensuring legitimacy through popular rather than perpetual judicial revision. Critics from living constitutionalist perspectives contend that fixed meanings risk in a changing society, but originalists counter that true adaptation occurs through formal amendments—as demonstrated by the 27 ratified since —or , preserving the Constitution's enactment thresholds. Empirically, originalism promotes consistency, as seen in Scalia's rejecting substantive due process expansions unsupported by 1868 understandings. While academic discourse, often institutionally inclined toward evolutionary interpretation, highlights methodological challenges like historical , originalism's core rationale prioritizes textual and historical objectivity to avert arbitrary governance.

Original Public Meaning

Original public meaning originalism posits that the Constitution's provisions should be interpreted according to the objective semantic content they conveyed to reasonable, well-informed persons at the time of their , employing the era's linguistic conventions and contextual understandings. This approach fixes the provision's meaning upon adoption, providing a stable interpretive rule independent of subsequent societal shifts or individual framers' expectations. To ascertain the original public meaning, interpreters examine historical evidence including contemporary dictionaries, grammar treatises, legal precedents, ratification convention records, newspapers, and public writings, which reveal how the text was commonly understood rather than private intentions. Modern methodologies, such as , further quantify linguistic usage across general and specialized legal corpora from the relevant period to distinguish lay from technical meanings where ambiguity arises. For instance, in (2008), the Supreme Court analyzed 18th-century sources to determine that the Second Amendment's phrase "keep and bear Arms" publicly signified an individual right to possess firearms for , unbound by militia service. This variant diverges from original intent originalism, which prioritizes the subjective purposes of the Constitution's drafters or ratifiers, by emphasizing the text's publicly accessible meaning to avoid challenges in discerning collective intent among diverse actors or sparse historical records. Emerging prominently in the late and 1990s as part of the "New Originalism," it gained traction through scholars like and judges such as , who in a 1986 address advocated interpreting the as it was "originally understood" by the public. Scalia's jurisprudence integrated public meaning with , insisting on legal rather than purely colloquial interpretations informed by period-specific context. Proponents argue this method ensures democratic legitimacy, as the 's authority derives from the people's of its publicly conveyed terms.

Distinction from Original Intent and Expectations

Original intent originalism posits that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to the subjective intentions of the Framers or the collective understanding of those who drafted and proposed the text, often discerned through debates, correspondence, and committee reports from the Founding era. This approach, prominent in early formulations by scholars like in the , faced criticism for its subjectivity, as the Framers held divergent views on many issues and lacked a singular "intent" amenable to objective recovery, potentially elevating unelected drafters over the ratifying public. In contrast, original meaning originalism—the dominant strain since the late 1980s—focuses on the objective semantic content of the text as it would have been understood by a reasonable, informed member of the at the time of , drawing on linguistic conventions, dictionaries, and contemporaneous usage rather than private intentions. , in his 1997 book A Matter of Interpretation, explicitly rejected intent-based methods, arguing they encourage judicial speculation into unknowable mental states and undermine the 's status as law ratified by "We the People," whose understanding binds subsequent interpreters; he advocated public meaning to ensure predictability and fidelity to enacted text over compromises or unspoken purposes. This shift addressed intent originalism's practical flaws, such as the risk of non-textual outcomes from inferred "spirit" over letter, while aligning with democratic processes where the adopted fixed meanings, not drafters' secrets. Original expectations, sometimes conflated with intent, emphasize the specific applications or concrete outcomes anticipated by enactors or ratifiers for provisions, potentially limiting interpretation to foreseen scenarios like 18th-century technologies or social conditions. Public meaning originalism distinguishes itself by prioritizing abstract linguistic principles inherent in the text, which permit extension to novel circumstances unforeseen at adoption—provided applications remain faithful to that fixed meaning—rather than confining judges to historical expectations that may underdetermine modern cases or reflect contingent contingencies. This avoids the rigidity of expectations-based readings, which critics argue could fossilize the against technological or societal evolution, while still constraining judicial discretion through historical evidence of semantic content; for instance, the First Amendment's public meaning encompasses broad speech protections applicable to , beyond quill-pen era expectations. Proponents maintain this method better upholds rule-of-law values by treating the as objective law, not a projection of subjective forecasts.

Historical Development

Antebellum and Founding Era Practices

The Founding generation interpreted the Constitution according to its fixed original public meaning, as evidenced by the legal terminology in its text—such as "Letters of Marque" and "Privileges and Immunities"—which demanded application of contemporaneous legal interpretive rules rather than subjective updates. Ratification debates and the Federalist Papers, including Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, emphasized strict textual analysis and objective rules, with Federalists arguing against judicial discretion to alter meanings post-adoption. The Oath Clause in Article VI further reinforced this by requiring officials to uphold the Constitution's prescribed meaning without deviation. Early political and judicial practices exemplified this approach, as seen in the 1791 debate over the Bank of the , where figures like Madison and Hamilton applied textual canons such as the anti-surplusage rule to discern the document's original import, prioritizing linguistic context over drafters' private intentions. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall construed the through its broad yet fixed original semantic range, rejecting notions of evolving interpretation in favor of the understanding prevalent at enactment. Similarly, v. Massachusetts (1838) directed interpretation to the Constitution's words as informed by the framing and ratifying conventions' original intent and public understanding. Antebellum practices sustained this originalist framework, with Americans increasingly regarding the as a static artifact embodying unalterable meanings derived from its 1787-1788 origins, rather than a malleable instrument subject to contemporary adaptation. Legal scholars and state conventions invoked Founding-era dictionaries and usage to resolve ambiguities, treating the text's public meaning as binding and resistant to post-ratification revision. This era's interpretive continuity, despite emerging sectional tensions, underscored a prevailing commitment to historical fixation, as articulated in political discourse and judicial opinions that deferred to the document's adoption-era semantics over policy-driven evolution.

Mid-20th Century Decline

The influence of , which gained prominence in American legal thought during the 1920s and 1930s, persisted into the mid-20th century, undermining formalist approaches like originalism by portraying constitutional interpretation as inherently policy-driven and responsive to judges' subjective assessments of social needs rather than fixed historical meanings. This shift was accelerated by the Supreme Court's repudiation of Lochner-era in cases such as West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), where the Court deferred to legislative economic regulations, effectively prioritizing pragmatic adaptation over original constraints on government power. By the , legal scholars like and had popularized skepticism toward mechanical textual or historical fidelity, arguing that such methods ignored the evolving context of governance amid industrialization and the Great Depression's aftermath. The Warren Court era (1953–1969) marked the nadir of originalist methodology in Supreme Court practice, as justices embraced "living constitutionalism" to justify expansive readings of rights protections untethered from ratification-era understandings. Chief Justice Earl Warren's leadership facilitated decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which inferred a right to privacy from amorphous "penumbras" formed by "emanations" of the Bill of Rights, diverging sharply from the document's original public meaning and instead invoking contemporary moral sensibilities. Similarly, Miranda v. Arizona (1966) imposed prophylactic warnings derived from evolving standards of fairness, overriding historical Fifth Amendment practices that did not require such self-incrimination safeguards prior to interrogation. These rulings reflected a broader judicial philosophy, articulated by justices like William O. Douglas and William J. Brennan Jr., that the Constitution must adapt to mid-century social upheavals, including civil rights movements and postwar expansions of federal authority, rather than being bound by 18th- or 19th-century intent. Academic and institutional trends reinforced this decline, with law schools emphasizing and process-oriented theories—such as those in Henry Hart and Albert Sacks' The Legal Process (1958)—that de-emphasized original meaning in favor of balancing contemporary interests and institutional competence. The Court's drew criticism for substituting judicial policy preferences, yet it entrenched living constitutionalism as the prevailing paradigm by the , marginalizing originalism until its later revival as a counter-reaction. This era's departure from empirical historical inquiry, often justified by appeals to moral evolution, highlighted tensions between textual fidelity and judicial innovation, with subsequent noting how such flexibility enabled outcomes aligned with progressive priorities but at the cost of democratic accountability through fixed constitutional limits.

Revival in the Late 20th Century

The revival of originalism in the late 20th century emerged as a conservative response to the perceived judicial activism of the Warren Court era (1953–1969), which advanced a "living constitution" approach allowing judges to adapt textual meanings to contemporary values. This shift toward non-originalist interpretation, exemplified in decisions expanding individual rights beyond historical understandings, prompted scholars and policymakers to reassert fidelity to the Constitution's original public meaning as a constraint on judicial discretion. Robert Bork played a pivotal role through his scholarly advocacy, articulating originalism as essential for neutral principles in constitutional adjudication in works like his 1971 article on First Amendment issues and later elaborations in the 1980s. Bork's nomination to the in 1987 by President Reagan brought originalism into national prominence, though his rejection by the —amid criticisms of his views on privacy rights—highlighted political tensions but also galvanized conservative legal thought. Under the Reagan administration, Edwin Meese III advanced originalism through a series of speeches beginning in 1985, including his July 9 address to the , where he criticized "judicial policymaking" and urged adherence to the framers' original intentions and public meaning to preserve democratic accountability. Meese's November 1985 speech further outlined a detailed originalist framework, influencing judicial nominees like , whom Reagan appointed to the in 1986. Justice Scalia's tenure solidified originalism's judicial foothold, as he championed in statutory cases and original public meaning in constitutional ones, authoring influential dissents and concurrences that critiqued evolving standards like expansions. His approach, emphasizing historical evidence over policy preferences, contributed to a broader intellectual revival, supported by institutions like the founded in 1982, which promoted originalist scholarship and clerkships. By the , originalism had transitioned from fringe critique to a dominant conservative interpretive , influencing appointments and discourse amid ongoing debates over its historical consistency.

Key Proponents and Influences

Political and Scholarly Pioneers

Robert H. Bork emerged as a leading scholarly proponent of originalism in the early 1970s, articulating in his 1971 Indiana Law Journal article "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems" that constitutional interpretation must adhere to the original understanding of the text's to prevent judges from substituting personal policy preferences for democratic processes. Bork argued that deviations from this approach, as seen in decisions like (1965), lacked legitimate neutral principles and undermined the Constitution's democratic legitimacy. His framework emphasized fidelity to the document's public meaning at , influencing subsequent originalist thought by framing it as essential for . Edwin Meese III, serving as U.S. from 1985 to 1988 under President , became a pivotal political champion of originalism through public speeches that sought to redirect federal away from evolving interpretations. In his July 9, 1985, address to the , Meese critiqued "living constitutionalism" for enabling and advocated interpreting the according to its original intent to preserve and . He elaborated in his November 15, 1985, "The Great Debate" speech to the D.C. Chapter of the , urging appointment of judges committed to originalism and warning that alternative methods eroded the rule of by allowing unelected judges to override legislative majorities. Meese's efforts, backed by the Reagan administration's judicial nominations, institutionalized originalism as a counter to perceived mid-century judicial overreach, crediting it with fostering a aligned with the framers' design. Bork's own 1987 Supreme Court nomination further elevated originalism politically, as hearings scrutinized his originalist views—expressed in works like The Tempting of America (1990)—prompting widespread debate on interpretive methods despite his rejection by a 58–42 vote on October 23, 1987. These pioneers collectively shifted originalism from academic critique to a viable alternative framework, emphasizing historical fidelity over judicial evolution to maintain constitutional stability.

Supreme Court Justices and Judicial Exemplars

, appointed to the in 1986 by President , emerged as the leading judicial exponent of originalism during his three-decade tenure. Scalia defined originalism as adherence to the Constitution's fixed meaning at the time of its adoption, famously describing the document as "not living but dead" to underscore its unchanging nature. His approach emphasized intertwined with historical evidence of public meaning, influencing opinions that constrained judicial policymaking, such as in (2008), where he construed the Second Amendment based on founding-era understandings of rights. Scalia's dissents and concurrences often critiqued "living constitutionalism" for enabling subjective , positioning originalism as a restraint on unelected judges. Clarence Thomas, elevated to the Court in 1991 by President , has consistently applied originalism with rigorous fidelity to historical practices, earning recognition as its purest practitioner among justices. Thomas prioritizes the original public meaning over subsequent precedents or doctrinal glosses, as seen in his separate opinions advocating reevaluation of landmark rulings like (1965) through ratification-era lenses. In First Amendment cases, he interprets free speech protections according to 1791 understandings, rejecting modern expansions not rooted in founding principles. His methodology extends to and , where he invokes original allocations of authority to limit congressional overreach, such as in challenges to administrative agency deference. Neil Gorsuch, confirmed in 2017 following Scalia's vacancy, self-identifies as an originalist who views the Constitution's meaning as fixed at enactment while permitting novel applications to contemporary facts. Gorsuch has defended originalism as essential for judicial humility, arguing it binds interpreters to democratic processes rather than personal policy preferences. In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), he authored the extending Title VII protections via textual originalism, demonstrating how fixed statutory meanings can yield outcomes diverging from traditional expectations. His pre-Court writings and rulings critiqued Chevron deference as incompatible with original separation-of-powers principles, favoring historical evidence of from executive interpretation. Other justices, including (appointed 2006) and (appointed 2020), incorporate originalist methods in key areas like gun rights and religious liberty, contributing to a Court majority inclined toward historical analysis by 2023. Earlier figures like Chief Justice (serving 1972–2005) laid groundwork through critiques of evolving in his 1976 foreword, advocating restraint aligned with founding structures, though not always strictly originalist in practice. These exemplars illustrate originalism's evolution from minority dissent to dominant interpretive framework, prioritizing verifiable historical evidence over policy-driven evolution.

Methodological Variants

Textualism and Originalism

Textualism emphasizes the ordinary meaning of a legal 's words as understood by a reasonable speaker at the time of enactment, rejecting reliance on legislative history or purposive intent. This approach, primarily developed for , posits that judges should prioritize the public-facing language over subjective understandings of drafters. Justice advanced textualism in the 1980s, arguing it ensures democratic accountability by binding interpreters to enacted words rather than inferred purposes. Originalism, in contrast, interprets the according to its fixed meaning at , often through the lens of original public meaning—the understanding held by informed citizens of the era. While applies broadly to legal texts, originalism specifically constrains constitutional to historical understandings, countering evolving interpretations. In practice, textualism serves as a core methodology within modern originalism, particularly original public meaning variants, where the Constitution's text is analyzed using period dictionaries, usage, and context to discern public comprehension. Proponents like Scalia integrated into constitutional analysis, as seen in his insistence on fixed linguistic meanings over policy-driven readings. This synergy promotes by limiting discretion to verifiable historical semantics rather than contemporary values. Distinctions arise in application: may suffice for unambiguous statutory provisions without deep historical inquiry, whereas originalism demands evidence of ratification-era practices for constitutional ambiguities. Critics argue potential tensions, such as using historical practices in constitutional cases while eschewing legislative history in statutes, though defenders maintain consistency in prioritizing enacted text over extraneous intent. Empirical analysis of founding-era corpora supports textualist tools in ascertaining public meaning, enhancing originalism's verifiability.

New Originalism and Abstraction Levels

The New Originalism, emerging in the late 1980s and 1990s, marked a shift from earlier variants focused on the framers' subjective intentions to an emphasis on the objective public meaning of constitutional text at ratification. This approach, advanced by scholars such as Antonin Scalia and Randy E. Barnett, posits that constitutional interpretation discerns the ordinary meaning understood by reasonable persons at the time of enactment, while construction applies that meaning to concrete cases, potentially allowing judicial discretion where text is vague. Unlike "Old Originalism," which sought specific legislative intent and faced criticism for indeterminacy in ascertaining collective purposes, New Originalism prioritizes textual semantics to constrain judges, though it acknowledges gaps filled by constitutional structure or tradition. A core methodological challenge in New Originalism concerns levels of abstraction—or generality—in applying original meanings, particularly for open-textured provisions like the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" or the Fourteenth Amendment's . Proponents argue that meanings should be fixed at a level of specificity mirroring the text's own granularity, avoiding post-hoc abstractions that import modern values; for instance, Scalia in Michael H. v. Gerald D. () rejected broad formulations like "freedom from " in favor of historically understandings, such as marital rules, to prevent judges from selecting abstractions suiting preferred outcomes. This specificity aims to bind interpretation to historical evidence, like debates or contemporary practices, rather than evolving principles. Critics of New Originalism contend that its flexibility on abstraction undermines judicial restraint, as judges can choose higher levels—e.g., abstracting "liberty" in substantive due process to encompass unenumerated rights—effectively reverting to living constitutionalism under historical guise. Recent Supreme Court applications, such as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), illustrate this tension: the majority required historical analogues at comparable levels of generality to the regulated conduct, rejecting "interest-balancing" tests, yet dissents and subsequent cases like United States v. Rahimi (2024) highlight disputes over whether analogues must match modern facts precisely or permit moderate abstraction for principles like disarming dangerous individuals. Scholars like Peter J. Smith argue that without rigorous rules for selecting generality—such as textual cues or historical context—New Originalism risks indeterminacy, failing to deliver the constraint promised over alternatives. Empirical analysis of post-Bruen lower court decisions shows inconsistent application, with some panels favoring narrow historical matches and others broader traditions, underscoring ongoing refinement needs. Defenders counter that principled , grounded in originalist evidence, preserves fidelity; for example, Barnett proposes zones for but insists interpretation remains historically tethered, outperforming non-originalist methods prone to policy-driven generality shifts. This debate has influenced the Court's "history and tradition" test, balancing specificity against over-rigidity, as seen in Rahimi where a five-justice upheld of domestic abusers by analogizing to laws at a mid-level , rejecting both hyper-specificity and loose balancing. Thus, levels remain a fault line, testing New Originalism's capacity to yield determinate, evidence-based outcomes amid constitutional ambiguity.

Judicial Applications

Landmark Cases on Rights and Powers

![Antonin Scalia, author of the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller]float-right In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, unconnected to militia service, based on the original public meaning of the text ratified in 1791. The opinion extensively surveyed Founding-era sources, including dictionaries, treatises by William Blackstone, and state constitutions, concluding that "the people" in the Amendment referred to individuals, not merely collective militia members. This marked a pivotal application of originalism to affirm a pre-existing right against D.C.'s handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) extended Heller's holding to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's , with Justice concurring in the judgment on originalist grounds by invoking the Amendment's as originally understood to protect fundamental rights against state infringement. The majority opinion, written by Justice , incorporated the Second Amendment right selectively through due process precedents but emphasized historical evidence of the right's deep roots in English and post-ratification practices. Chicago's near-total handgun ban was , reinforcing originalism's role in limiting state regulatory powers over enumerated rights. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) applied originalism to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973), holding that the makes no reference to and that the Fourteenth Amendment's history demonstrates no right to it, as evidenced by widespread 19th-century state laws criminalizing the procedure. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion analyzed ratification-era understandings and post-Civil War practices, concluding that was not deeply rooted in the nation's history or traditions, thus returning regulatory authority to the states and people. This decision highlighted originalism's emphasis on historical evidence over evolving societal norms in defining . On federal powers, (1995) invalidated the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 under the , with William Rehnquist's opinion invoking original understanding to reject expansive interpretations that would erase federalism's structural limits, as the Clause was not intended to regulate non-commercial, intrastate activities like gun possession near schools. Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence advanced a stricter originalist view, arguing that the Clause historically covered only channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities thereof, or activities substantially affecting it in a direct sense, not cumulative effects theory. This restrained federal authority, preserving powers. Printz v. United States (1997) struck down parts of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local officials to conduct background checks, interpreting the Tenth Amendment through originalist lens as prohibiting federal commandeering of state executives, consistent with the Constitution's ratification debates and anti-federalist concerns over sovereignty. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion drew on historical practices and the Amendment's reservation of non-delegated powers to states, affirming dual sovereignty as a structural principle. These cases illustrate originalism's application in curbing federal overreach by adhering to enumerated powers' original scope.

Recent Supreme Court Decisions (2022–2025)

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022), the overruled and , holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to and that regulation of the practice is left to the states. Justice Alito's majority opinion applied a history-and-tradition test rooted in original public meaning, concluding that the protects only those substantive rights deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition at the time of ratification, and that abortion lacked such historical basis, as evidenced by longstanding state laws criminalizing it. This approach rejected the "living Constitution" framework of prior precedents, emphasizing instead the original understanding of liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (June 23, 2022), the Court struck down New York's discretionary licensing regime for of handguns, extending the Second Amendment's protections to public carry outside the home. Justice Thomas's majority opinion mandated that modern firearm regulations be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," rejecting means-ends scrutiny in favor of direct historical analogues from the founding era and Reconstruction. The decision underscored originalism's role in interpreting enumerated rights, requiring courts to assess whether restrictions align with the public understanding of the Amendment at its adoption, rather than policy balancing. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) invalidated race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, ruling them violations of the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's original command to eliminate racial distinctions in law, holding that admissions policies using race as a "plus factor" perpetuated stereotypes and lacked sufficient justification under the Amendment's text and history, which demanded color-blind equality post-Civil War. Justice Thomas's concurrence reinforced this through originalist analysis, arguing that the Amendment's framers rejected racial classifications in favor of individual merit. In (June 28, 2024), the Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, which had required judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Roberts's opinion grounded the decision in the original meaning of the of 1946 and Article III, asserting that courts must independently interpret laws as intended, without deferring to executive interpretations that exceed textual limits. This textualist-originalist approach emphasized , rejecting administrative deference as inconsistent with the judiciary's constitutional duty to say what the law is. Trump v. United States (July 1, 2024) established that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts within core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts. Roberts's drew on the original structure of the , historical practice from the founding, and precedents like separation-of-powers doctrines to conclude that criminal liability for core executive functions—such as pardons or —would undermine the presidency's . The ruling applied originalist reasoning to executive authority, prioritizing the framers' design over post-hoc prosecutorial theories. As of October 2025, the 2024-2025 term has featured ongoing applications of history-and-tradition tests, such as in United States v. Rahimi (June 21, 2024, from prior term but influencing), which upheld disarmament of domestic abusers based on historical surety laws analogous to modern restrictions. No major originalist decisions have been issued in the current term by late October, though cases on birthright citizenship and executive removal powers invoke originalist arguments.

Defenses Against Alternatives

Promoting Judicial Restraint and Democratic Legitimacy

Originalism advances by anchoring constitutional interpretation to the document's original public meaning at , constraining judges from injecting subjective policy preferences into law. This methodology, as articulated by Justice , serves as a deliberate check on judicial power, compelling interpreters to apply fixed historical understandings rather than adapting the text to modern exigencies. By prioritizing textual fidelity over evolving norms, originalism mitigates the risk of courts functioning as super-legislatures, a concern Scalia identified as central to the theory's appeal for apolitical . This restraint bolsters democratic legitimacy by reserving major constitutional shifts to processes explicitly designed in the document itself, such as amendments under Article V or legislation by representative bodies. Originalists like contended that fidelity to original intent preserves the Constitution's role as a stable framework for governance, preventing unelected judges from overriding democratically enacted laws on grounds of perceived moral evolution. Such deference aligns with majoritarian processes, ensuring that policy innovations reflect the electorate's will rather than isolated judicial discretion, thereby maintaining public trust in the as an impartial arbiter rather than a policy innovator. Empirical observations of non-originalist approaches, which have permitted expansive readings in cases like (1973), underscore originalism's value in curbing overreach that bypasses legislative channels. Bork's framework explicitly tied originalism to democratic accountability, arguing that without historical grounding, judges risk imposing undebated values that undermine representative government. In practice, this has manifested in originalist decisions that invalidate judicial inventions while upholding statutes unless they demonstrably deviate from original constraints, fostering a judiciary that empowers rather than supplants democratic institutions.

Empirical Superiority Over Living Constitutionalism

Originalism fosters greater than living constitutionalism by constraining judges to fixed textual meanings, reducing opportunities for policy-driven decisions. Empirical analysis of practices reveals that constitutional precedents are overruled three times more frequently than statutory ones since , a disparity attributed to the malleability of evolving interpretations under living constitutionalism, which permits reinterpretation based on contemporary values rather than original constraints. In contrast, originalism anchors decisions in historically ascertainable meanings, limiting judicial discretion and aligning outcomes more closely with enacted law, as evidenced by lower courts' adherence to vertical stare decisis when bound by clearer hierarchical rules. Living constitutionalism contributes to constitutional instability through era-specific precedents that reflect shifting judicial majorities and values, such as those from the or mid-20th century eras, leading to path-dependent inconsistencies rather than enduring principles. Originalism counters this by deriving generalizable rules from the Constitution's original public meaning, enabling consistent application across cases and reducing reliance on fact-bound precedents that erode predictability. Growing originalist scholarship further enhances this stability by systematically documenting historical meanings, filling interpretive gaps that living approaches leave to subjective evolution. Empirically, originalism aligns constitutional interpretation with supermajoritarian enactment processes, yielding a more effective framework for governance than the judge-led adaptations of living constitutionalism. The Constitution's by extraordinary majorities—requiring approvals across diverse states—ensures its provisions reflect broadly vetted principles, which originalism preserves against transient judicial preferences. Scholars argue this supermajoritarian origin produces superior constitutional outcomes, as evidenced by the document's endurance and adaptability through formal amendments rather than judicial fiat, outperforming systems where living interpretations impose elite consensus over . The U.S. Supreme Court's historical , ranked highest among global counterparts, correlates with weakened stare decisis under living approaches, underscoring originalism's restraint in deferring policy to elected branches.

Criticisms and Rebuttals

Claims of Indeterminacy and Historical Selectivity

Critics of originalism argue that it often results in indeterminacy, as the original public meaning of constitutional provisions is frequently ambiguous or multifaceted, requiring judges to exercise substantial discretion akin to that in non-originalist approaches. For instance, scholars have contended that constitutional text rarely yields a singular, sufficiently determinate "original public meaning" due to linguistic evolution, contextual variances, and incomplete historical records, leading to multiple plausible interpretations rather than a clear mandate. This indeterminacy is said to undermine originalism's promise of objectivity, with historical evidence from ratification debates or founding-era practices often conflicting or open to selective emphasis, as evidenced in analyses of provisions like the Second Amendment where analogical reasoning fills evidentiary gaps. Related to indeterminacy, claims of historical selectivity assert that originalists inconsistently invoke , applying originalist methodology only when it aligns with preferred outcomes while resorting to other interpretive tools otherwise—a phenomenon termed "selective originalism." Law professors have documented this in jurisprudence, where the Court cites founding-era to restrict rights (e.g., in gun regulation cases) but ignores or downplays it in areas like administrative law or commerce clause expansions, suggesting methodological cherry-picking rather than principled adherence. Historians further critique originalism for oversimplifying the past, arguing that it privileges elite framers' intentions over broader societal understandings or evolving practices, as seen in Rakove's analysis of the founding era's fluid constitutional meanings that resist fixed recovery. Such selectivity is attributed to the practical challenges of historical fact-finding, where incomplete archives and partisan historiography allow judges to favor congenial precedents, as explored in critiques of the Court's post-2022 reliance on 18th- and 19th-century analogs. These criticisms, often advanced by academic historians and law professors, highlight originalism's vulnerability to the same subjective influences it seeks to constrain, potentially perpetuating under a veneer of historical . Empirical reviews of originalist decisions, such as those involving or equal protection, reveal divergences even among self-identified originalists, underscoring the doctrine's internal inconsistencies. Proponents counter that indeterminacy exists in all interpretive theories and that originalism's evidentiary demands promote rigor, but detractors maintain it exacerbates selectivity by tying outcomes to contested historical narratives.

Responses Highlighting Living Constitution Failures

Originalists respond to critiques of their methodology by emphasizing the practical and institutional failures of living constitutionalism, which they argue empowers unelected judges to impose evolving policy preferences under the guise of interpretation, leading to subjective outcomes and diminished public trust in the judiciary. Justice Antonin Scalia described this approach as treating the Constitution as a "morphing" document that means "what it ought to mean" in the judges' view, rather than its fixed original public meaning, resulting in an illusion of flexibility that masks judicial legislation. This subjectivity, originalists contend, fosters legal instability, as constitutional protections shift with judicial compositions, undermining the rule of law's predictability and neutrality. A prominent example is (1973), where the , relying on an expansive reading of , recognized a to absent textual or historical grounding, establishing a trimester framework that dictated state regulations nationwide. Originalists, including Scalia, criticized this as judicial overreach that bypassed democratic processes, igniting prolonged national division and inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions. The decision's reliance on abstract privacy notions, evolving from earlier cases like (1965), exemplified living constitutionalism's tendency to discover without ratification-era support, leading to a regime that, by the Court's later admission in Dobbs v. (2022), lacked deep roots in the Nation's history and traditions. In Dobbs, the majority applied originalist analysis to overturn Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's does not encompass because it is not deeply rooted in objective historical standards at enactment. This reversal highlighted living constitutionalism's failure to constrain judicial invention, as Roe's framework had compelled states to permit abortions up to viability in many cases, overriding legislative judgments without democratic recourse and contributing to over 60 million abortions by some estimates, alongside cultural polarization. Originalists argue such precedents erode judicial legitimacy by inviting perceptions of the Court as a super-legislature, as evidenced by subsequent threats of court-packing and the politicization of confirmation processes. Further illustrations include the expansion of powers in cases like Wickard v. Filburn (1942), where living constitutionalism justified federal regulation of intrastate wheat production as affecting interstate commerce, stretching the clause beyond its original enumerated limits and enabling vast administrative state growth. Scalia warned that this evolutionary method threatens liberty by allowing judges to redefine constitutional boundaries to suit modern exigencies, bypassing Article V's amendment process for structural changes. In contrast, originalism's fidelity to ratification-era meaning, originalists maintain, promotes restraint, ensuring that evolving norms are addressed through legislation or rather than judicial fiat, thereby preserving democratic accountability.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/originalism
  2. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-3/ALDE_00001304/
  3. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2362&context=facpub
  4. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4927&context=flr
  5. https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-originalism-became-the-prevailing-view-the-us-supreme-court
  6. https://news.gsu.edu/research-magazine/fall2018/the-myth-of-originalism
  7. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/white-papers/on-originalism-in-constitutional-interpretation
  8. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1353/
  9. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1541&context=nulr
  10. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/assets/originalism-and-historical-fact-finding.pdf
  11. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/originalism-standard-and-procedure/
  12. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-courts-originalism-doesnt-have-much-do-history
  13. https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/04/originalism-makes-sense-a-response/
  14. https://pacificlegal.org/originalism-vs-textualism-vs-living-constitutionalism/
  15. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3248&context=facpub
  16. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/resources/academic-scholarship/originalism-theory/
  17. https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/originalism-constraint-judges
  18. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/originalism-the-lesser-evil/
  19. https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~dlevin/conlaw/scalia-originalism.doc
  20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub/200/
  21. https://kewhitt.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf3716/files/Originalism_Conservative_0.pdf
  22. https://lawliberty.org/what-is-original-public-meaning/
  23. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol113/iss6/4/
  24. https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2018/03/how-scalia-saved-originalism-by.html
  25. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4735&context=ndlr
  26. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1483&context=law_review
  27. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2477&context=faculty_scholarship
  28. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2023/02/46_1_1-McGinnis-Final.pdf
  29. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3347&context=clr
  30. http://www.lpbr.net/2023/05/the-antebellum-origins-of-modern.html
  31. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2391&context=faculty_publications
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/antebellum-origins-of-the-modern-constitution/introduction/E9330F867202CA2A3EF684847AC13071
  33. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2661&context=sdlr
  34. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1814&context=wlulr
  35. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=ijlse
  36. https://twu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/938d5c36-3bb6-4448-b259-57a8e49bbbf7/download
  37. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=lj
  38. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/a-deeper-originalism-from-court-centered-jurisprudence-to-constitutional-self-government
  39. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=uclrev_online
  40. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-senate-rejects-robert-bork-for-the-supreme-court
  41. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-to-the-american-bar-association/
  42. https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/Meese-Revolution-WTP-transcript.pdf
  43. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/antonin-scalia-how-he-changed-america-213631
  44. https://cato.org/supreme-court-review/2015-2016/justice-scalias-originalism-original-or-post-new-deal
  45. https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-original-originalist-2
  46. https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/13_72
  47. https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/originalism-and-conservatism-american-story
  48. https://news.law.northwestern.edu/news/the-meese-revolution-steve-calabresi-pens-book-on-former-u-s-attorney-general/
  49. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-founders-originalism
  50. https://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466744465/originalism-a-primer-on-scalias-constitutional-philosophy
  51. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol92/iss5/3/
  52. https://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia
  53. https://lawliberty.org/which-justices-are-originalists/
  54. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/justice-thomas-originalism-and-the-first-amendment
  55. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/justice-thomas-criminal-justice-and-originalisms-legitimacy
  56. https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-gorsuch-why-originalism-is-the-best-approach-to-the-constitution/
  57. https://www.oyez.org/justices/neil_gorsuch
  58. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/the-administrative-law-originalism-of-neil-gorsuch/
  59. https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-courts-originalists-have-taken-over-heres-how-they-interpret-the-constitution-212241
  60. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2021/09/Cairns.pdf
  61. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/two-kinds-of-originalism
  62. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/textualism
  63. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.8-2/ALDE_00001303/
  64. https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/umlr/article/4682/&path_info=UMLR_20vol_2076_20no_203_20_285_29_20Wathen_20Article_Final_20Proof.pdf
  65. https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-barrett-on-textualism-and-originalism/
  66. https://www.law.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2023.4_Solum_FINAL.pdf
  67. https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/textualisms-defining-moment/
  68. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4090893
  69. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45129.html
  70. https://harvardlawreview.org/?p=16982
  71. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=glr
  72. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2941720
  73. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4936&context=flr
  74. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol51/iss2/4/
  75. https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=mhlr
  76. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=faculty_publications
  77. https://mhlawreview.org/article/levels-of-generality-originalism-proposing-a-new-way-forward-as-originalism-continues-to-expand/
  78. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5557741
  79. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=jcl
  80. https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol78/iss2/4/
  81. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/faculty/papers/siegel.levels-of-generality-pub.pdf
  82. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
  83. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
  84. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
  85. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
  86. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
  87. https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/the-kingdom-of-antonin-scalia
  88. https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3521&context=lawreview
  89. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=uclrev_online
  90. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1337&context=articles
  91. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1727&context=faculty_scholarship
  92. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/stexlr41&section=50
  93. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1452&context=faculty_scholarship
  94. https://lawliberty.org/originalism-contributes-to-legal-stability-as-much-as-precedent/
  95. https://www.nacua.org/docs/default-source/jcul-articles/volume-42/42_jcul_235.pdf?sfvrsn=f95e64be_9
  96. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/231041959.pdf
  97. https://virginialawreview.org/articles/the-chimerical-concept-of-original-public-meaning/
  98. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/originalism-by-analogy-and-second-amendment-adjudication
  99. https://texaslawreview.org/selective-originalism-and-judicial-role-morality/
  100. https://www.oah.org/process/originalism-history/
  101. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7025&context=faculty_scholarship
  102. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=wmborj
  103. https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/37010-284art3smith
  104. https://www.cmc.edu/salvatori/publications/the-textualist-jurisprudence-of-justice-scalia
  105. https://www.npr.org/2008/04/28/90011526/scalia-vigorously-defends-a-dead-constitution
  106. https://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/originalism-dobbs-and-the-unconstitutionality-of-roe
  107. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2012/12/11/scalia-favors-enduring-not-living-constitution
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.