Interpretation and Meaning
-
This Legal Theory Blog post examines the role that originalism plays in the opinions in Trump v. Barbara. What does today’s decision tell us about the role that originalism is playing on the Supreme Court? That question has several dimensions. One dimension is theoretical: does the reasoning of the Justices indicate a commitment to the…
-
Introduction Today, June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided two removal-power cases. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinions and there were several concurrences and dissents. Trump v. Slaughter held that the FTC’s for-cause removal protection is incompatible with Article II and overruled what remained of Humphrey’s Executor. Trump v. Cook declined to…
-
Yesterday, I was surprised and delighted to learn that Justice Jackson had cited Originalism and Constitutional Construction, 82 Fordham L. Rev. 453 (2013), in her dissenting opinion in Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U. S. ___ (2026) (slip op., at 15 n.8) (Jackson, J., dissenting). Justice Jackson cited me to establish the interpretation-construction distinction. “Interpretation” is the activity…
-
On Wednesday, April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Barbara. Much of the debate about the clause has focused on the original meaning of the first Clause of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…
-
I recommend the excellent discussion at Michael Plaxon’s Substack: Interpretive Methodology: Is Anything Ever Really Settled?. Here is a taste: Yet I believe we have reached a kind of tipping point in Canadian constitutional discourse. No matter what the majority in Taylor said, the idea that alternative constitutional methodologies are inherently implausible or beyond-the-pale or unworthy of attention by…