Stephen Breyer

Stephen Breyer criticizes recent Supreme Court decisions and argues for a more pragmatic jurisprudence.

Originalism is not so much an idea as a legal-industrial complex divided into three parts—the academic, the jurisprudential, and the political.

Among the thousands of cases the Supreme Court has decided, only a handful of dissenting opinions stand out.

The Supreme Court punts on Hernandez v. Mesa, leaving the Constitution lost in the borderlands.

Would the Founders have protected people we execute now?

“Against Constitutional Originalism” by historian Jonathan Gienapp could fundamentally reorient how we understand America’s founding.

Eighty years ago, Americans embraced a new definition of their faith: “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”

The text and historical context of the Constitution provide liberals with ample opportunities to advance their own vision of America.

When historians concede to discuss the past with the terms of the present, they abandon the skill set that makes them historians.

The centrist, compromising view of reproductive rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey helped clear the path to overturn Roe v. Wade.

How microeconomic reasoning took over the very institutions of American governance.

Judicial dissent in the Supreme Court has a long history.

Despite her path-braking work as a litigator before the Court, she doesn't believe that large-scale social change should come from the courts.