News Summary
Federal Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman are leading an innovative course on Originalism at various law schools across Texas. By focusing on the historical context of the U.S. Constitution, students are learning the foundational roots of American law. The judges emphasize the necessity of understanding original intent in legal interpretations, asserting that this approach leads to a more balanced judicial philosophy. The course aims to inspire future lawyers to appreciate the principles that uphold the republic, while addressing the ongoing debates surrounding originalism in modern jurisprudence.
Texas – U.S. District Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman are teaching a course titled “Originalism & the Origins of the Federal Constitution” at various law schools in Texas. This initiative aims to deepen students’ understanding of the Constitution by exploring what its drafters intended at the time of its creation. The course is currently offered at institutions including Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law and Texas A&M School of Law.
The curriculum focuses on originalism, a judicial philosophy that interprets legal texts based on the meanings they held at the time of their enactment. Starr and Pittman emphasize its relevance, especially considering the increasing number of Supreme Court justices who identify as originalists or textualists. By educating future lawyers on originalism, they believe that students can better understand and apply constitutional principles in their professional careers.
During the final class of the semester, Starr encouraged students to consider their role in upholding the republic, invoking the famous remark by Benjamin Franklin regarding the responsibility of citizens in a republic. The course intends to provide a comprehensive discussion on the historical sources of the concepts embedded within the Constitution, moving away from interpretations that might strip the document of its original context.
Critics of originalism argue that this approach can constrain legal applications to principles that might not align with contemporary values or societal needs. However, Pittman argues that adhering to the Constitution helps ensure that judicial decisions are based on established principles rather than individual biases. Both judges advocate for a system rooted in what the public initially perceived and intended, rather than personal interpretations. Through this course, they aim to establish a “neutral set of principles” from which future legal interpretations can emerge.
Judges Starr and Pittman were both appointed by former President Donald Trump to serve on the Northern District of Texas. They aspire to see judges from all political backgrounds participate in teaching this course in the future, promoting wider educational access to constitutional historical context. The course itself was originally developed by U.S. District Judge Charles Eskridge, who was motivated by remarks made by Justice Clarence Thomas on the inadequacy of historical context in law school curricula.
Eskridge first introduced the class at the University of Houston, utilizing “The Founders’ Constitution” as a key resource to provide students with direct readings from foundational historical documents, rather than relying solely on court decisions or academic analyses. This pedagogy aims to create a direct understanding of the Constitution as it was intended, enabling students to appreciate the document’s significance based on its original context.
Besides Starr and Pittman, the collaboration allows for the coordination of the course across multiple institutions, significantly enhancing the educational experience provided to students. Jason Nance, the dean of Dedman School of Law, remarked on the distinct advantages that arise from having judges impart their expertise directly to law students. This sentiment is echoed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, who acknowledges this unique opportunity for students to learn from sitting judges.
Pittman noted that his study of historical materials has influenced his judicial approach, particularly in civil trial juries, leading him to favor 12-member juries for balanced decision-making. This shift reflects a larger trend within a segment of conservative judges who are increasingly leaning towards originalism and evolving their judicial philosophies in response to its critiques.
As the landscape of judicial interpretation continues to evolve, courses like “Originalism & the Origins of the Federal Constitution” aim to equip the next generation of lawyers with the necessary tools to navigate complex constitutional issues grounded in historical understanding.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
- Bloomberg Law: Federal Judges School Future Lawyers on Originalism
- Salt Lake Tribune: Letter on Justice Clarence Thomas
- NBC News: Originalism Dead Letter? Supreme Court Majority Accused of Abandoning Legal Principles
- Deseret News: Why Constitutional Originalism Is Not a Partisan Legal Theory
- Wikipedia: Originalism
