Inside the Supreme Court: Unraveling Divisions Among Conservative Justices

The appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during the early years of President Trump's administration significantly altered the landscape of originalist thought within the Supreme Court.

These three jurists, all committed originalists who believe the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time of ratification, joined other like-minded justices such as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. This alignment transformed originalism from a minority viewpoint into the dominant judicial philosophy on the court.

However, the elevation of originalists to the majority brought new challenges. Issues that were once theoretical debates among a small faction became pressing constitutional questions. Key among these are how readily an originalist court should overturn precedents that conflict with the Constitution’s original meaning, and how to address modern legal disputes when the original text offers no clear guidance.

Contrary to perceptions of a unified conservative front, the originalist justices demonstrate notable divisions on these theoretical and practical issues. The central challenge facing this bloc is maintaining consensus to steer the law in an originalist direction despite internal disagreements.

For proponents of originalism, these internal debates represent a critical hurdle in efforts to restore what they view as the rule of law, which they believe was compromised during the court’s decisions in the 1960s and 1970s under Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger. Observers of the court, regardless of political stance, recognize these ideological divides as essential to understanding recent and future rulings.

Modern originalism emerged in response to Supreme Court rulings perceived by some as lacking constitutional basis, including the landmark decisions in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which mandated informing detainees of their rights, and Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized abortion rights. Critics argued these rulings were arbitrary and, according to Justice Byron White, amounted to an overt exercise of judicial power.