originalism

American  

[uh-rij-uh-nl-iz-uhm] / əˈrɪdʒ ə nlˌɪz əm /

noun

Law.

1. the doctrine that a legal document or statute should be interpreted by determining its original meaning, or how it would have been understood by informed readers when it was first written.

2. the doctrine that a legal document or statute should be interpreted according to the actual or supposed intent of the author or authors, taking into consideration the historical context.

3. either of these doctrines in reference to legal interpretations of a constitution, especially the U.S. Constitution.

   Judges who disagree with judicial activism, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, tend to embrace originalism.

---

Other Word Forms

• originalist
  noun

Etymology

Origin of originalism

First recorded in 1980–85; original ( def. ) + -ism ( def. )

Explanation

In U.S. politics, originalism is the belief that the Constitution should be followed in the exact way it was intended at the time it was written, nearly 250 years ago. According to originalism, the Constitution's meaning can't be adapted to modern life without new amendments. Instead, originalists say the document's original intent must be interpreted, and that legal decisions should be based on the way the Constitution would have been understood in 1787. Today, originalism is usually associated with conservative politics. Originalism is from original and its Latin source, which means "beginning or birth."

Example Sentences

See Examples For:

originalism

He has less patience for commentators who seek to debunk originalism by measuring its practitioners against a caricature of the method.

From The Wall Street Journal ● Aug. 7, 2026

He writes that in light of the court’s embrace of originalism, “Kennedy may no longer be controlling precedent.”

From Slate ● Jul. 1, 2026

“The more this form of analysis gets extended, the stranger it becomes,” said Jonathan Gienapp, law and history professor at Stanford and a critic of originalism.

From The Wall Street Journal ● Jun. 10, 2026

This is well-trod philosophical ground — referencing “negative” and “positive” rights, natural law and all the usual back and forth about originalism and whether the Constitution is living or static.

From Salon ● Apr. 19, 2026

Their argument is more like These guys say they’re doing originalism, but they’re doing it wrong.

From Slate ● Jul. 9, 2025