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.
Embedded in a recently decided Supreme Court case about Cuba and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act—Exxon Mobil v. Cimex(opens in new tab)—was a...
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...
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...
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...
Many disdain the use of consequences in legal interpretation. Yet it turns out that interpreters have long used consequences, particularly...
Treating a tax or tariff as different from a confiscation is an interpretive issue that should be decided by Congress, not the judiciary.
On Nov. 5...
Article II of the Constitution says that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Of course, the...
In United States v. Skrmetti the Supreme Court will consider whether Tennessee’s broad prohibitions on gender-affirming care for minors violates the...
In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court held that district courts do not have the authority to issue “universal” injunctions that protect nonparties...
Until he joined the U.S. government in 1934, Robert H. Jackson had been a lawyer in private practice in Upstate New York who was admitted to the bar...
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump suggested that there could be “an interesting problem” with the Treasury market that would justify non...
To uphold Tennessee’s ban on pediatric gender-affirming care, the court in United States v. Skrmetti hid from the specter of discrimination. The court...