"Text, history, and tradition" is a method of constitutional interpretation the Supreme Court's conservative majority uses to decide whether a claimed right or government regulation is consistent with the Constitution. The approach asks a specific question: does the text of the relevant amendment protect the claimed right, and does the historical record from the time of ratification support that protection?
The Supreme Court formalized this framework in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Court ruled that when the Second Amendment's text covers an individual's conduct, the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation — not just that the regulation serves an important public interest. This replaced the balancing tests courts had used for decades, where judges weighed individual rights against government interests.
The same methodology drove the majority opinion in Dobbs, which found no historical tradition of abortion rights before the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification in 1868. Critics argue the approach locks constitutional meaning to eras when women couldn't vote, enslaved people had no rights, and modern technology didn't exist. Supporters say it prevents judges from inventing rights not grounded in the Constitution's text.
This interpretive method now controls how the Supreme Court decides cases on guns, abortion, religion, and privacy. It treats the past as a binding limit on the present — meaning historical practices from the 18th and 19th centuries can determine what rights Americans have today.
People sometimes think "originalism" and "text, history, and tradition" are the same thing. They overlap but aren't identical. Originalism is the broader philosophy that the Constitution should be read as it was understood when adopted. "Text, history, and tradition" is the specific test the current Court applies — it requires the government to identify a historical analogue for any regulation it wants to defend.
This interpretive method now controls how the Supreme Court decides cases on guns, abortion, religion, and privacy. It treats the past as a binding limit on the present — meaning historical practices from the 18th and 19th centuries can determine what rights Americans have today.
People sometimes think "originalism" and "text, history, and tradition" are the same thing. They overlap but aren't identical. Originalism is the broader philosophy that the Constitution should be read as it was understood when adopted. "Text, history, and tradition" is the specific test the current Court applies — it requires the government to identify a historical analogue for any regulation it wants to defend.