Originalism: What it is, what it isn’t and why it’s the most democratic option for the Supreme Court

# What Originalism Means for How the Supreme Court Interprets the Constitution

A majority of the current Supreme Court follows originalism, a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on the original public meaning of the Constitution's text at the time it was written. The approach gained prominence through Justice Antonin Scalia, who championed it throughout his three decades on the bench before his death in 2016.

Originalism stands apart from other interpretive frameworks that allow justices to adapt constitutional meaning based on modern circumstances or evolving social values. Instead, originalists argue the Constitution's meaning was fixed when ratified and should not shift with contemporary preferences.

The theory rests on a specific premise: the Constitution means what it meant to informed readers in 1787 and during subsequent amendments. Justices following this approach examine historical documents, founding-era dictionaries, and the text itself to discern the original public meaning rather than the framers' private intent.

Scalia explained originalism as a guard against judicial subjjectivity. By anchoring interpretation to original meaning, justices theoretically cannot impose personal policy preferences under the guise of constitutional law. This constraint appealed to justices across the ideological spectrum who worried that alternative methods granted too much interpretive flexibility.

Current Supreme Court justices who embrace originalism include Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Their dominance represents a significant shift in the Court's jurisprudence. Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald Trump, proved especially notable in 2020 when he sided with the Court's liberal wing to extend civil rights protections to LGBTQ workers, reasoning from the original public meaning of Title VII's text.

Originalism faces persistent criticism from legal scholars and justices who contend it masks judicial discretion rather than eliminating it. Critics argue that choosing which historical sources to consult and how to apply eighteenth-century language to modern problems still involves interpretation. Justice Elena Kagan remarked that originalism appears "fun" but questioned whether it truly constrains judicial power.

The methodology also raises practical challenges. Originalists must decide what "original public meaning" means for an illiterate population with limited access to information. They must determine how to handle historical silences where the framers said nothing about contemporary issues like digital privacy or artificial intelligence.

Despite these objections, originalism's adherents maintain it offers the most democratic approach to constitutional law. They contend that elected branches, not unelected judges, should drive policy change. When justices rewrite constitutional meaning to match modern preferences, they effectively amend the Constitution without following Article V's amendment process, according to originalist theory.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization exemplified originalism's ascendance. Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion examined founding-era history and concluded the Constitution's text did not protect abortion rights, returning the question to states and voters.

Schools and educators monitor Supreme Court constitutional interpretation closely because it shapes how courts handle disputes over curriculum, student speech, religious expression, and educational funding. As originalism dominates the Court's majority, its reasoning increasingly affects lower court decisions affecting public education policy nationwide.