The Law — the concept of the law itself rather than the actual codified law in the American system — exists similarly to a finely woven tapestry, in which the story of a nation’s values, struggles and triumphs are detailed. As society progresses, the tapestry evolves; thread by thread, a story begins to unfold that can be read by future generations.
However, there are stains blemishing the intricate design — impairments that go against the grain and the flow of progress, obscuring the vibrant threads of justice as we strive toward a brighter future.
“Originalism,” a legal theory that claims to uphold traditional constitutional values at the time of its adoption, stands out as one of the most recent stains.
In reality, originalism exists far from the margins of being an apolitical or neutral tool. Rather, it exists as a political weapon — a tool for reinforcing and imposing non-majoritarian beliefs in an increasingly less-democratic system.
By clawing at the notions of “original intent” and the “original meaning” of constitutional provisions, those who preach originalism seek to freeze the tapestry of American law in time, in hand ignoring the complexity of contemporary society. This results in a perversion of the purpose of the Law, morphing it into a system that serves the interests of the few in power and leaves the voices of the hopeful majority unheard.
The stain of originalism becomes most apparent when we examine how the political weapon has been wielded in times of pivotal legal change.
Two recent examples of this include Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center and the recent executive order signed by President Trump to end birthright citizenship.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark case ensuring bodily autonomy to women in the United States seeking an abortion. The justices who carried out the case claimed the constitutional provision used to explain the Roe v. Wade decision lacked a genuine mention of abortion rights in its “original understanding.”
This decision did not just alter decades of legal precedence — it represented a fraying of the threads connecting contemporary justice to the lives of millions.
The Supreme Court justices relied on selective, cherry-picked interpretations of historical precedence and factors, pulling only on those threads that furthered their political narrative and ignoring the ones that would have reinforced broader patterns of individual liberties and a substantive right to privacy.
These justices thus became weavers, attempting to unravel current threads of precedent in order to stitch their own narrative into the tapestry of today’s legal framework.
Another and more recent example of the dark blot that originalism has placed on the fabric of American law can be seen in the executive order signed by President Trump to end birthright citizenship — that is, citizenship automatically afforded to those born in the U.S. regardless of their parents’ documentation status in our country.
The Trump administration claims to draw on the “original meaning” of the 14th Amendment — specifically the phrasing “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This interpretation seeks to exclude the children born to undocumented immigrants by claiming that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of American law.
This interpretation frays the fabric of the Constitution and unravels the inclusive principles that underlie the 14th Amendment, which was originally and explicitly designed to extend citizenship to those historically excluded from its protections. The use of originalism in this context explicitly displays its ability to distort a law’s intent.
By attempting to unravel such a crucial thread in our vibrant, diverse legal tapestry, originalists continue to seek to rework the Law to further their political agenda.
Rather than weaving new threads of equity and inclusion, originalism risks tearing apart the very foundation of equal rights under the law afforded to us by our Constitution.
If the Law is to remain a rich tapestry that reflects the evolving values of a just society, we cannot allow originalism to continue to stain and fray its threads. It becomes the duty of all of us — as advocates, lawmakers and citizens alike — to guard against those who seek to unravel progress.
Whether it’s reproductive rights or reforms to immigration, the threads that are unraveled by originalism directly impact the lives of us as students and people living in the U.S. These stains are not just distant legal theories, but they are disruptions that will impact your ability to thrive in a just society.
As college students, we are not bystanders, but active weavers of a society’s tapestry. Movements for social progress — such as the Civil Rights Movement, the gender equality movement and calls for immigration reform — are all driven by the young voices that uphold them. Originalism threatens to undermine the progress that we fight for, seeking to pull the threads of equity and justice from the design of the Law that we strive to create.
Each and every one of us has the power to weave a brighter future. By engaging in civic activism — right here in Raleigh and NC State’s campus — and continuing to learn more about law and policy, we can all work to ensure the legal tapestry reflects the values we seek from the Law.
