Image
Judicial Interpretation
In considering state constitutional questions, judges may apply an array of methodologies, including originalism and other uses of history, textualism, purposivism, comparativism (including studying other state courts), and common law or precedent.
State constitutions also raise unique interpretation questions. For example, one common issue is whether a state constitutional provision should be interpreted in “lockstep” with the federal constitution.
Filters
Applying Federal Constitutional Theories to State Constitutions
Judges should reject calls to embrace a single method of constitutional interpretation.
Getting Comparative Law Right in State Courts
The Supreme Court used flawed legal comparisons in overturning Roe v. Wade. Looking forward, state judges must take context into account when engaging with other countries’ abortion laws.
A Conversation with Washington Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven C. González
Washington State’s chief justice discusses balls and strikes, diversity on the bench, and the role of state courts in protecting rights.
Abortion Cases Take Originalism Debate to the States
In striking down an abortion ban in South Carolina and upholding one in Idaho, state high courts are grappling with the use of history in constitutional interpretation.
Get to Know Your State's 'Baby Ninth Amendment'
State constitutions offer protections for unenumerated rights, but courts rarely act on those provisions.
Scholarship Roundup: Lessons for Evaluating State Constitutional History
Recent scholarship raises important questions about how state high courts should use the history of their state’s constitution, particularly when information is lost or unreliable.