Many critics of the Supreme Court argue that the justices have disingenuously reverse-engineered a method of constitutional interpretation that yields conservative results in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. But is this a fair critique of the Court? Or has the majority of the Court merely steered constitutional interpretation back to considering the original meaning of the text?
First Liberty Institute’s Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy, the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding, and the University of Chicago Federalist Society hosted a conversation featuring Professors Gerard Bradley (Notre Dame), Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern), and Richard Epstein (Chicago) at the University of Chicago Law School to explore this topic. The panel will be moderated by Professor Adam MacLeod (St. Mary’s University).
