Professor Joel Alicea has a thoughtful and perceptive op-ed in the New York Times, "The Supreme Court Is Divided in More Ways Than You'd Think," discussing the issues that divide the Supreme Court's five originalist justices. It begins:
When Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Supreme Court during President Trump's first term, originalism found itself in an unfamiliar and challenging position.
All three of the court's new members were avowed originalists, holding that judges ought to interpret the Constitution according to the meaning it had when it was ratified. As a result, a majority of the justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, now subscribed to this theory. Originalism, long seen as an insurgent force at the Supreme Court, had become its reigning philosophy.
For the originalists on the court, the shift from backbenchers to decision makers brought new responsibilities and presented new difficulties. Problems that had mostly been hypothetical debates within the court's originalist minority became central questions of constitutional law. How readily should an originalist court overturn a precedent at odds with the original meaning of the Constitution? What should an originalist judge do when the original meaning of the Constitution does not fully address a modern dispute?
As Professor Alicea notes, the five originalist justices often disagree on a range of issues that can affect how cases are decided and how quickly the Court's doctrine changes, including the extent to which the Court should respect non-originalist precedent and whether originalism, on the margin, should be more focused on constraining judicial discretion or on fulfilling the original meaning of the Constitution.
