Rule of Law

CAC Releases “Laying Claim to the Constitution: The Promise of New Textualism (Discussion Draft)”

Today, Constitutional Accountability Center is releasing the discussion draft of a paper written for CAC by James E. Ryan, the William L. Matheson & Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Due to be published in its final version in the University of Virginia Law Review in November, it is titled Laying Claim to the Constitution: The Promise of New Textualism [pdf], and we believe that — on the eve of our third anniversary, coming up in June — it will serve as the intellectual foundation for our work in the years to come.

Here’s the abstract for the paper:

Living constitutionalism is largely dead. So, too, is old-style originalism. Instead, there is increasing convergence in the legal academy around what might be called “new textualism.” The core principle of new textualism is that constitutional interpretation must start with a determination, based on evidence from the text, structure, and enactment history, of what the language in the Constitution actually means.

This might not sound revolutionary. But it is. This Article explains how we have arrived at this point, why it is significant, and what work remains to be done. In particular, it explains why new textualism is especially important to progressives, as it offers them both a principled and promising means by which to lay claim to the Constitution. New textualists are effectively rebutting, once and for all, the false but still-common perceptions that only conservatives care about the text of the Constitution and that the Constitution itself is fundamentally a conservative document. If new textualists succeed in their effort to show that the Constitution — all of it, including the amendments — is actually a quite progressive document, this reorientation would represent the most significant shift in constitutional theory and politics in more than a generation.

Jim’s paper takes on a lot of conventional wisdom on the left and on the right.  We want it to stir discussion and debate and we urge readers of the draft to provide us with comments and critiques as the paper takes its final form.  We’re claiming the Constitution: let the debate begin!

(PS:  For readers of a more scholarly stripe, you can also find Professor Ryan’s paper here on SSRN.)

 

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.