How Courts Interpret the Constitution
When I was in law school, my constitutional law professor required us to read an article entitled “Constitutional Law and Interpretation” by Professor Sir Philip Bobbitt who is the Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence at Columbia Law School and known as a leading constitutional scholar.
Reading and studying this article fundamentally changed the way I read legal opinions, especially when it comes to the constitution. This blog post is a summary of his article.
The Big Idea
When courts interpret the Constitution, they aren’t following a single formula. Legal scholar Philip Bobbitt explains that constitutional decisions are built from several different types of legal reasoning. Judges often agree on facts but disagree on which type of argument matters most — and that’s why constitutional law debates can be so intense.
Why Interpretation Matters
Courts must justify their rulings in ways that lawyers, scholars, and the public recognize as legitimate. If a judge can’t ground a decision in accepted legal reasoning, the decision risks being seen as political rather than legal.
Constitutional interpretation isn’t just about meaning — it’s about legitimacy.
The Six Methods Judges Use
Bobbitt identifies six recognized forms of constitutional argument. These are the standard tools lawyers use in briefs and judges use in opinions.
1. Textual
Focuses on the actual words of the Constitution — grammar, ordinary meaning, and phrasing.
2. Historical
Looks to original intent or understanding: what the framers or ratifiers meant when they adopted the text.
3. Structural
Infers rules from the Constitution’s design — like separation of powers or federalism — even if not stated explicitly.
4. Doctrinal (Precedent)
Relies on prior court decisions. Courts generally follow earlier rulings to maintain stability and consistency.
5. Prudential
Considers real-world consequences and practicality. Judges may favor interpretations that produce workable or beneficial results.
6. Ethical
Appeals to fundamental constitutional values — liberty, equality, democracy, and the nation’s political tradition.
Why Judges and Courts Disagree
Different judges prioritize different interpretive methods. One may emphasize text; another, history; another, consequences. Because the Constitution itself doesn’t rank these methods, disagreement is inevitable.
Many constitutional disputes are really arguments about interpretive method, not just constitutional meaning.
Bobbitt’s central claim is that constitutional law isn’t a single theory. It’s a system of multiple legitimate arguments that sometimes point in different directions. Courts must choose among them and justify that choice.
This explains why:
- reasonable judges can disagree, and
- constitutional law evolves over time.
Takeaway
Understanding constitutional interpretation isn’t about memorizing one rule. It’s about recognizing the toolkit judges use and how they decide which tool fits a particular case.
In short: constitutional law is less about finding one right answer — and more about choosing the most persuasive way to justify an answer.
Author Credit:
Philip Bobbitt, “Constitutional Law and Interpretation,” in A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory
Kenton Karrasch
Surratt Law Practice
