Kevin Tobia (Georgetown University Law Center) & Brandon Waldon (University of South Carolina) have posted Linguistics and Textualism in the New York University Law Review (2026) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Should linguistics inform textualism? When legal theories make claims about another discipline’s subject, that discipline is often illuminating: History impacts originalist debates, economics shapes “law and economics” analysis, and psychology imbues behavioral legal studies. Linguistic claims abound in textualist decisions and debates, but linguistics—the scientific study of human language—less often informs these. Now, critics question whether it should. This Essay defends the relevance of the field of linguistics to the theory, practice, and critique of textualism. We offer examples, including the Supreme Court’s 2025 VanDerStok decision. Our argument implies neither that textualism is the correct interpretive theory nor that linguistics invariably bolsters it. Indeed, linguistics often challenges textualist assumptions and conclusions. The Essay’s claim is simply that for both textualists and their critics, considering—rather than eschewing—linguistics makes discussion more sophisticated and productive.
Highly recommended! Download it while it’s hot!
To receive a daily summary of posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.