Professor Marc O. De Girolami, co-director of the Center for Law and the Human Person at Catholic Law, had an op-ed published in The New York Times. The piece, Something Other Than Originalism Explains This Supreme Court, examines "traditionalism" as an emerging constitutional theory in some recent cases and offers some justifications for it. He is writing a book about traditionalism in constitutional law.

The New York Times
Opinion: Guest Essay
March 29, 2024
By: Marc O. De Girolami
Something Other Than Originalism Explains This Supreme Court

. . .

This court is conventionally thought of as originalist. But it is often more usefully and accurately understood as what I call “traditionalist”: In areas of jurisprudence as various as abortion, gun rights, free speech, religious freedom and the right to confront witnesses at trial, the court — led in this respect by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh — has indicated time and again that the meaning and law of the Constitution is often to be determined as much by enduring political and cultural practices as by the original meaning of its words.

The fact that the Supreme Court seems to be finding its way toward an open embrace of traditionalism should be broadly celebrated. To be sure, the court’s traditionalism has played a role in many decisions that have been popular with political conservatives, such as the Dobbs ruling in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade. But it is not a crudely partisan method. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama nominee, has used it in a decision for the court — and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, has expressed some skepticism about it.

. . .

Click here to view the op-ed.