Originalism vs Contextualism

When Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution and other laws, they often disagree on the meaning of certain words and phrases. Two of the most common approaches to interpreting the founding document are originalism and contextualism; understanding the difference between the two can help explain why judges sometimes reach very different conclusions about the same law even when reading the same text.

Originalists argue that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was intended to be when it was written and ratified, with the intent of the Framers or with the “original public meaning” (how a regular, informed person would have understood the text at the time). In other words, they believe the meaning was established when it was written and does not change. Originalists believe their approach restricts justices from imposing their policy preferences and beliefs, keeping the interpretation rooted in a fixed standard rather than adjusting the context as the country evolves. Critics argue that determining the original meaning is difficult and also risks embedding 18th-century standards on issues the Framers could never have anticipated.

Contextualism is the opposite approach, typically defined as adapting the document’s text to suit modern values, societal changes, and contemporary issues. In other words, contextualists believe the Constitution’s context should evolve, adapting to modern societal needs and values over time. People who believe in this approach argue that the Constitution’s meaning should transform to reflect today’s knowledge and circumstances, rather than remain rigidly rooted in 18th-century conditions. Supporters of this theory believe it keeps the Constitution adaptable to modern life and think the founding document should be a “living Constitution” that grows and changes with the times. Critics argue this approach gives justices too much discretion to interpret meaning based on their own values and beliefs.

Justices associated with conservative beliefs often lean toward originalism, while those associated with liberal values often lean toward contextualism. Knowing which theory different justices typically apply to cases can sometimes help understand how they reach certain conclusions.