Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly inconvenient consequences, to decode the law. In the eighteenth century, an argumentum ab inconvenienti-a claim that an alternative reading of the law must be mistaken because of its bad consequences-was a routine technique, perhaps almost as common as an argument grounded on the letter of the law. This article unearths Founding-era evidence of the surprisingly widespread use of consequences to both defeat opposing readings and to decode a law's meaning. Commentators, including Matthew Bacon and Joseph Story, recounted the practice, and litigants, judges, executives, and legislators regularly implemented it. This use of consequences was scarcely controversial, as there seems to have been no one at the Founding who highlighted its difficulties or drawbacks, much less rejected the practice. Instead, the likes of John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and many others deployed arguments from consequences to determine the meaning of federal and state law. What is an epithet today-result oriented-was something of an apt description of the interpretive practices of the era. As Thomas Jefferson observed, an argument from consequences was one of the "great foundations of the law.
Tradition is most well known today for starring in blockbuster Supreme Court cases about controversial social issues, notably abortion and firearms...
Embedded in a recently decided Supreme Court case about Cuba and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—Exxon Mobil v. Cimex—was a debate about the...
The Supreme Court’s turn to “history and tradition” raises the critical question of what to do about “bad traditions.” If the customs of yore were...
In recent years, “tradition” has been influentially invoked in constitutional rights adjudication and legal scholarship. The Supreme Court, in...
Constitutional law has a great deal to say about what symbols are permitted in the public square. Somewhat baroque legal rules (sometimes created...
On Friday, the archconservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a stunning nationwide injunction that directly affects one-fourth of...
In the four years since the Supreme Court decided Dobbs, cases involving abortion have come before it repeatedly. Each time, the court has ducked the...
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that patients can continue to get mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, via telehealth...
In earlier work, I discussed historical understandings of the kinds of disputes that Congress can authorize nonjudicial actors to resolve and the...
Although the U.S. Constitution is widely described as lacking enforceable social rights, a recent line of cases from the Ninth Circuit recognizes a...
After an impatient wait, the U.S. Supreme Court finally handed down its opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the tariffs case, on Friday, Feb...
At points in American history, there have been significant, even massive shifts in constitutional understandings, doctrines, and practices. Apparently...
Under President Joe Biden, the U. S. Attorney General appointed a special federal prosecutor to investigate former President Donald Trump’s actions...
The Supreme Court’s current approach to religious freedom reflects an asymmetric view of religious motivation. Under the Free Exercise Clause, the...
The United States imprisons about 1.8 million people—more than any other nation. Roughly a quarter of those behind bars have not been convicted; they...
Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly...
Filed Jul 27 2026
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at UVA Law filed this amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress, Jared...