What defines textualism in legal interpretation?

Definition and Core Principle

Textualism in legal interpretation is the method of focusing on the plain meaning of the statutory or constitutional text itself, as understood at the time of its enactment. It prioritizes the text’s wording above legislative history, secondary sources, or the presumed intentions of the authors. Advocates of textualism hold that the clearest guide to legislative meaning is the language the lawmakers chose to enact.

Textualism aligns with the view that proper authority rests in the text itself. This approach proposes that where the text is clear, judges and interpreters should not inject additional meaning or omit key words but rather be bound by what the text says.

Historical Roots of Textualism

Although the contemporary legal term “textualism” rose to prominence in modern jurisprudence—particularly through the influence of jurists like Associate Justice Antonin Scalia—its roots can be traced back to older interpretive traditions where a directive’s wording was paramount. Under the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BC), for instance, public laws were carved in stone so citizens would know the precise rules. This ancient practice of inscribing laws formed a foundation for respecting text as the final source of authority.

Similarly, references to the importance of a text’s plain meaning have always resonated with biblical interpreters who treat sacred Scripture as inviolable. The reverence held for textual exactness in biblical contexts (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls’ scrupulous copying standards) serves as a historical analogy to how textualism insists on the precise words being critical in legal contexts.

Key Textualist Principles

1. Plain Meaning Rule

Textualists maintain that the first step is to consult the plain, ordinary meaning of the legal text. If the text is unambiguous and covers the situation at hand, that should be the interpretation.

2. Contextual Reading

While textualism centers on the plain words, it also respects the broader context where the words appear. The same principle applies to Scripture, where verses are interpreted in light of surrounding passages to avoid misunderstanding: “No prophecy of Scripture comes from one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).

3. Avoiding External Influences

Textualism typically avoids diving into legislative history to glean what legislators may have intended. Rather than reconstructing subjective motives, textualists rely on what the text objectively conveys. This approach is somewhat akin to the emphasis on consistent manuscript transmission in biblical studies, highlighting the actual words over speculations about an author’s unrecorded designs.

4. Integrity of the Written Word

Under textualism, the text has enduring authority that does not shift with cultural changes. This perspective shares conceptual ground with the principle that Scripture’s authority remains, regardless of the twists and turns of human society (cf. Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever.”).

Parallels in Scriptural Interpretation

In Scriptural interpretation, readers often look to the original languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—to be certain of a passage’s original meaning. Textualism in the legal realm likewise focuses on the original words and their public meaning at enactment. Just as biblical scholars consult the Masoretic Hebrew text (for the Old Testament) and the earliest Greek manuscripts (for the New Testament), textualist judges consult the original legal text to avoid adding external assumptions.

Preserving textual integrity is also observable in archaeological discoveries such as portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which demonstrate consistent transmission of the text. They bolster the premise that the precise wording, consistently preserved, is paramount. Analogously, textualism calls for an unwavering reliance on statutory or constitutional words as documented and transmitted.

Applications in Legal Practice

1. Constitutional Interpretation

When a constitutional provision is deemed unambiguous based on the terms used, a textualist judge is less likely to stretch the meaning beyond those words. This is akin to how biblical interpreters do not stretch a verse to teach a doctrine alien to the immediate syntax and vocabulary.

2. Statutory Interpretation

In courts that favor textualism, arguments centering on extratextual sources—such as legislative debates, contemporaneous journals, or the private statements of lawmakers—tend to have limited impact if the statute’s wording is clear on its face.

3. Reliance on Established Meanings

Textualism frequently necessitates consulting dictionaries, historical usage guides, and recognized canons of construction that reveal how words were used when the law was enacted. This approach is comparable to how biblical scholars compare Koine Greek texts to arrive at consistent renderings.

Addressing Concerns and Challenges

Critics of textualism suggest it sometimes appears too rigid or fails to adapt to evolving societal norms. Textualists respond, however, that lawmakers can update or amend the written text if changes become necessary, much as biblical texts were carefully copied and standardized, not altered whimsically in response to cultural shifts. This commitment to fidelity in language is upheld also in the interpretation of historical documents like the Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution, underscoring that precision in language serves a stabilizing function.

Significance for Broader Interpretation

Textualism’s significance extends beyond the legal realm. In any domain where written words carry authority—such as historical, theological, or scientific documents—textualism operates as a safeguard against misinterpretation. In Scripture, for instance, the text’s authority has stood the test of time, defended by manuscript evidence like the John Rylands Papyrus (P52) or Codex Sinaiticus. These manuscripts preserve wording that believers view as essential to understanding foundational doctrines, including events central to faith.

Concluding Consideration

Textualism insists that the rightful guide to interpreting law is the text itself and that fidelity to the enacted words protects against judicial overreach or misreading. This commitment to the language echoes what has long been practiced in careful biblical exegesis—adhering to the content as it is written. By remaining faithful to the text’s original sense, textualism and its equivalents in other fields uphold both consistency and clarity, ensuring that meaning is not lost amid changing times.