If the Supreme Court takes the theory seriously, then lawyers have to as well. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

[link removed]

John Marshall, the great early chief justice, believed that the Constitution should be a document understood broadly by its principles. He wrote

[link removed]

: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” Today, the Supreme Court seems to have chosen to forget.

The conservative supermajority has made clear that it is applying originalism as the central method to interpret the Constitution. It’s a radical approach purporting to freeze the charter in time and interpret its words only with their supposed original public meaning in 1787. Litigants seeking to roll back rights and cripple the federal government have taken the Court’s cue and are loading up their opinions with junk history.

We have many critiques — more on that below. But like it or not, this is the current situation for people fighting for rights and justice before the Court.

It’s why the Brennan Center has done something new. Last week, we published a handbook

[link removed]

detailing how to recognize and respond to originalist arguments — a hands-on manual for lawyers and judges who find themselves in the funhouse of nutty linguistics and historical muck and haven’t the foggiest idea of how to pretend to be historians.

My colleague, Tom Wolf, writes:

Our report distills the insights we’ve been sharing with our allies in the litigation trenches. It gives attorneys practical advice for spotting, analyzing, and defeating shoddy history in their cases. Our guide is based on the idea that lawyers facing originalist arguments don’t have to become historians or default into “doing originalism.” Lawyers can still lawyer, using court decisions and critical thinking to take originalist claims off the table. Our guide shows them how. And — for those situations where lawyers have to get into the historical details — it walks through steps they can take to work better with historians, put forward more accurate history when that’s appropriate, avoid mistakes that can weaken their cases, and use history in non-originalist ways.

The lawyers on the front lines protecting our democracy are busy. So, our guide gets right to the point. It offers a battery of bite-size tips, supported with extensive citations to case law, scholarly literature, and court filings that lawyers can quickly adapt for their briefs and oral arguments.

Ironically, there is no “history and tradition” of the Supreme Court working this way. More than most realize, the Supreme Court’s embrace of originalism is a recent phenomenon. It only truly took hold in 2022, with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (purporting to rely on the Constitution’s original meaning to repeal the right to an abortion) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (which said, in effect, that current public safety concerns could not constitutionally be a basis for gun regulation).

Before that, the only major originalist decisions were 2008’s DC v. Heller, which found a right to individual gun ownership under the Second Amendment. Oh, and Dred Scott . . . which the originalists don’t talk about very much.

Today, the Court is spotty in its application of this newfangled theory. Trump v. United States, which granted presidents vast immunity from criminal prosecution, wasn’t the tiniest bit originalist. A look at the founding era would have found little support for a monarchical presidency.

Now the Court is considering major questions of presidential power and constitutional rights. Questioning during the argument about Trump’s tariffs seemed to turn on early federal practices. The Trump administration is attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of certain immigrants, based on a rewriting of the 14th Amendment that recalls the spirit of Dred Scott.

In the case that asks whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission, questions focused more on issues of the structure of the federal government — perhaps because the Court already settled on a flawed historical account of the president’s removal power in earlier cases

[link removed]

and seems convinced it can protect the Federal Reserve with a historically specious carveout

[link removed]

. If the Court lets the firing go forward, it will overrule Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 case that affirmed the constitutionality of protections for heads of independent agencies created by Congress. But as we argue on behalf of historian Jane Manners in a friend-of-the-court brief

[link removed]

, legal limits on firing officials came much earlier, predating even the founding. Well aware of these limits, the framers expected Congress to be able to set the terms of executive offices.

The country has changed and thrived since the Constitutional Convention. As the United States grew from a few settlements along the East Coast to a continent-spanning nation with 350 million people, we found ways to do all the things a modern government must do. It makes little sense to try to govern in 2025 by trying to enforce the social mores of property-owning white men in the 1700s.

Over time, it seems clear that originalism has been wielded mostly as a tool to cloak conservative policy choices in historical and legal jargon. Yet we engage originalist arguments on their merits, because we must. And we must be able to respond more effectively.

It’s good to know the history. I’ve written three books on constitutional history — and it’s fascinating. But what matters most is not what happened in 1787, but what happened after.





AI Provisions in the New Defense Bill

Congress is taking long-overdue steps to regulate how artificial intelligence can be used in intelligence activities and warfighting. Soon, it will pass the National Defense Authorization Act — the annual defense policy bill — which features several AI-related provisions, including safeguards meant to mitigate AI risks and a bar on using a Chinese AI model. Amos Toh breaks down the bill in Tech Policy Press, explaining “what it does well, what’s just plain weird, and what it overlooks at the nation’s peril.” Read more

[link removed]

Supreme Court Messes with Texas

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court put on hold a lower court ruling that had struck down Texas’s congressional map, which was controversially gerrymandered last summer in a bid to secure new Republican House seats through racially discriminatory means. “The high court’s decision means that Texans will vote in the 2026 midterms using a map that the trial court found had been aggressively redrawn to target the seats of five Black and Latino members of Congress,” Michael Li writes. He highlights takeaways from the Court’s ruling and explains what comes next. READ MORE

[link removed]

Protecting Free and Fair Elections

The midterms are less than a year away, and they face an unprecedented threat. As Michael Waldman explained to The Atlantic’s David Frum, “for the first time . . . in American history, the federal government and the Trump administration are actively waging an effort to undermine the 2026 elections.” He details the administration’s campaign to illegally rewrite election rules and suppress votes, as well as what can be done to stop it. Read more

[link removed]





Podcast

Bush v. Gore and the State of U.S. Elections

[link removed]

On election night in 2000, the networks called it prematurely for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it for George W. Bush, then retracted again. Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, put an end to the recount underway in Florida, handing the presidency to Bush. The fractured opinions were a maze of disagreements, with the majority warning that the opinion should not be cited as precedent. Their reasoning flummoxed legal scholars — even those who agreed with the outcome. Watch or listen as experts involved in the case discuss the legacy of the controversial ruling on YouTube

[link removed]

// Spotify

[link removed]

// Apple

[link removed]

// SUBSTACK

[link removed]





Coming Up

VIRTUAL EVENT — 2025: Year in Review

[link removed]

Tuesday, December 23, 3–4 p.m. ET



This year, we saw extraordinary threats to American democracy: an executive power grab, threats to voting rights, and more. Yet there has also been a growing response, from the courts to ordinary citizens. What happened? And what can we expect next?



Join us virtually as Brennan Center experts discuss issues including elections, the Supreme Court, and corruption. RSVP today

[link removed]



Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

[link removed]





News

Elizabeth Goitein on judicial pushback against Trump’s National Guard deployments // NPR

[link removed]

Sean Morales-Doyle on a Justice Department lawsuit over 2020 voting records // THE WASHINGTON POST

[link removed]

Eric Petry on limits on spending by political parties // BOSTON GLOBE

[link removed]

Daniel Weiner on oral argument in a Supreme Court campaign finance case // C-SPAN

[link removed]

Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]







[link removed]

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271

646-292-8310

tel:646-292-8310

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Support Brennan Center

[link removed]

View Online

[link removed]

Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here

[link removed]

to update your preferences.

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]