In 2026, the Supreme Court, with its solid 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to continue its trend of prioritizing original intent (or original public meaning/textualism) and history and tradition over the strict adherence to longstanding precedent (stare decisis) in significant cases.
Legal
analysts and recent case outcomes indicate a court increasingly willing to
re-examine and overturn prior decisions when they are deemed inconsistent with
the original understanding of the Constitution.
Key aspects of this trend:
Originalist Philosophy: A majority of the current justices either self-identify as originalists or lean heavily toward this judicial philosophy, which holds that constitutional provisions should be interpreted based on their meaning at the time they were written.
Weaker View of Stare Decisis: The court has demonstrated a "weaker version of stare decisis," viewing prior precedents as not absolute and open to being overturned if the majority believes they were wrongly decided. As one legal expert noted, an "originalist court" is "far less concerned with what earlier courts have said about the Constitution than it is about getting the law right" according to original meaning.
Overturning Longstanding Precedents: The current term is expected to address cases that could see major precedents overturned, especially those related to the power of independent agencies (like the 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey's Executor), further expanding executive power based on a strict reading of the Constitution's separation of powers.
Focus on Textualism: In statutory interpretation, textualism (focusing on the plain meaning of the text over legislative intent) is a predominant method used by the conservative majority.
While judicial precedent (stare decisis) and textualism remain the interpretive backbone of most opinions in a general sense, the current court's willingness to re-evaluate and, at times, dismiss major non-originalist precedents in high-stakes, ideologically charged cases highlights a clear preference for originalist principles when the two methods conflict.
In 2026, the Supreme Court is expected to continue its shift toward originalism as its primary interpretive method, often at the expense of long-standing precedent. Legal experts observe that the current conservative majority is increasingly willing to "repeal" decades of case law if they find it conflicts with the original public meaning of the Constitution.
The Court's 2026 term includes several major cases where this tension is at the forefront:
Executive Power: In cases like Trump v. Slaughter, the Court is being asked to ditch a 1935 precedent (Humphrey's Executor) that limited the president's power to fire independent agency heads.
Birthright Citizenship: The Court will hear a challenge to birthright citizenship on April 1, 2026, which will test originalist interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
Voting Rights: Cases like Louisiana v. Callais may force the Court to choose between adhering to established Voting Rights Act precedents and modern originalist critiques of racial gerrymandering.
Stare Decisis: While some justices like Amy Coney Barrett argue that originalists can still respect stare decisis (the doctrine of following precedent), others like Clarence Thomas suggest that settled cases are not "the gospel" and should be reconsidered if they are poorly reasoned.
Emergence of "Traditionalism": Some scholars note a move toward "traditionalism," where the Court looks at historical practices following ratification to inform original meaning, potentially bridging the gap between pure original intent and established practice.
This approach has led critics to describe the current era as a "court of repeal," signaling that for the 2026 term, getting the law "right" according to historical meaning often takes priority over maintaining predictability through precedent.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment