Dear (Juris)Prudence: Who Cooks Up the Supreme Court’s BS Originalist Ideas, Anyway?

Last week’s episode of Amicus included a mailbag special in which Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern answered listeners’ burning questions about the law. Amicus listeners have a lot of smart questions, so we’re running an occasional “Dear (Juris)Prudence” series in which we share your questions and Mark and Dahlia’s answers. Write to [email protected] to pose a question to Dahlia and Mark. This transcript has been edited and condensed for clarity. Dear (Juris)Prudence,

Recently, you’ve criticized many SCOTUS opinions seemingly founded upon baseless notions about the law and history. I’m wondering if the justices are themselves creating these absurd notions or if appellate advocates are suggesting and steering the justices toward these contrived ways of thinking.

Mark Joseph Stern: It’s a little bit of both. We did talk about this a good deal during our series two years ago, “ How Originalism Ate the Law .” I want to revive and kind of expand on that because we now have the real-life example of the birthright citizenship case. This was a perfect storm of the nonsense rising up from all of the drains and gutters around SCOTUS Town.

We saw a concerted effort for years by fringe academics and also politicians to try to create a theory of why the 14 th Amendment doesn’t mean what it says in its very first sentence in the citizenship clause. They laundered those views, often through the media, which was far too credulous in repeating them; got a broader array of academics, especially those eager to make a name for themselves, to embrace it and tout it; and then they ended up getting four votes on the Supreme Court.

I think that was a scandal. I think it was catastrophic—incredibly concerning that constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship is now one vote away from possible annihilation. But that was a really good example of the originalism industrial complex, or the law-review industrial complex, churning out some nonsense that the Supreme Court came one vote away from embracing as a constitutional theory.

But the justices do absolutely have a bigger role to play here. They aren’t just passive recipients. Yes, in the birthright citizenship case, Clarence Thomas just sort of regurgitated all of this highly dubious “scholarship” about the 14 th Amendment and birthright citizenship, and we knew that was going to happen because he’s a terrible originalist, and he just cherry-picks whatever history happens to fit his preconceived notion of what the Constitution should say.

But sometimes the justices also put out a call for this complex to give them a reason to do something. And one really good recent example of this that actually was to our benefit, I think, as a country, was when the court sort of summoned scholars to give them a reason to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve while destroying the independence of every other independent agency in the executive branch, right?

We saw in that shadow docket order from last year, the court said, We think the Federal Reserve is different because of reasons .