The Constraining Effect of “History and Traditionâ€: A Test

Rebecca L. Brown, Lee Epstein and Mitu Gulati

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2024, vol. 713, issue 1, 200-220

Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court’s embrace of originalism, and particularly the “history and tradition†method of interpreting constitutional text, is often justified by its defenders as constraining judges from making up the law to match their preferences. This is a testable hypothesis. With the Bruen case in 2022, the Supreme Court moved away from a contemporary means-ends method of interpreting the Second Amendment to an originalist, “history and tradition†one. In this article, we analyze data on gun rights decisions handed down by lower federal courts from 2000 to 2023, finding that the Supreme Court’s switch to an originalist jurisprudence did not, in fact, constrain judges—rather, it corresponds with an increase in judicial discretion. Personal factors like partisan identity, gender, race, and careerist considerations shape judicial behavior in the post- Bruen era in ways they did not under the prior regime.

Keywords: originalism; Second Amendment; guns; Heller; Bruen; history and tradition; Supreme Court (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162251335725 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:anname:v:713:y:2024:i:1:p:200-220

DOI: 10.1177/00027162251335725

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().