Should judges read the Constitution as it was understood in 1787, or as a living document that grows with the times? That single question divides American law, and originalism is one of the two great answers.
Originalism is the approach to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning, what the words were understood to mean when they were adopted. Its central claim is that this meaning is fixed, and that judges are bound to it rather than free to update it.
Its appeal is the constraint it promises. Originalists argue that if judges can read new meanings into old words, they become unelected legislators imposing their own values. Anchoring to original meaning, they say, keeps judges humble and the Constitution stable.
It rose to prominence in the late twentieth century, championed by figures like Justice Antonin Scalia, as a reaction against rulings critics saw as judges inventing rights. It reshaped how cases are argued and how nominees are questioned.
Its great rival is the idea of a living Constitution, the view that the document's broad principles must be applied to circumstances the founders never foresaw, and that meaning can evolve. The clash between these two philosophies runs through nearly every major constitutional fight.
