With the Supreme Court’s new term beginning in October, it will hear disputes over semiautomatic rifles, voter registration, and climate change. The subjects have little in common, but each presents a question at the heart of originalism. Will the justices apply the Constitution and laws as written, or reshape them to reach a preferred result?
As a public-interest law firm marking 50 years of advancing an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Landmark Legal Foundation has seen the issues before the court change many times. The court’s duty has not. Three cases this term will test whether the court does exactly that.
In Viramontes v. Cook County, the court will consider bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. Under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, courts must examine the Second Amendment’s text and the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If a weapon qualifies as a protected “arm,” the government must demonstrate that its restriction is consistent with that tradition.
The 7th Circuit concluded that AR-15s are not protected “arms,” likening them to military M16s rather than firearms used for individual self-defense. That allowed the court to bypass Bruen’s historical inquiry entirely. Another lower court acknowledged that the rifles are bearable arms but nevertheless found historical support for banning them.
That support included 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives and trap guns. But those laws generally regulated concealed carry, sales to minors, or criminal misuse, or prohibited rigging a firearm to discharge without anyone present. They are not historical equivalents of a categorical ban on possessing an entire class of commonly owned rifles.
The court should hold that these rifles are protected arms and that the historical record does not justify banning their possession.
Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota presents a different problem. Arizona enacted voter-registration laws requiring applicants who use the state’s registration form to provide documentary proof of citizenship and directing election officials to identify and remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. Challengers contend that the provisions conflict with the federal National Voter Registration Act and a 2018 consent decree involving Arizona election officials.
Those objections rest on two distinct legal claims, neither of which justifies setting aside Arizona’s law. The NVRA does not prohibit Arizona from requiring documentary proof of citizenship from applicants using the state’s own registration form. The court should apply the statute as Congress wrote it and uphold Arizona’s requirement.
The consent decree raises a separate question. A friendly agreement negotiated by state officials should not permanently prevent a legislature from enacting and enforcing a valid superseding law. The earlier agreement cannot preempt legislation or impose a restriction that federal law does not require.
Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County tests a different limit on governmental authority. Can a local government reach beyond its borders and effectively make policy for the nation?
Boulder County, Colorado, seeks damages from energy companies for alleged local harm connected to global climate change. The question is not whether Boulder faces costs or whether climate change matters. It is whether state-law claims may be used to seek relief for the alleged effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.
Assuming the court determines it has jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, it should rule that they may not. Energy production, emissions, and their alleged effects extend far beyond Colorado. The energy products at issue were extracted, produced, sold, and consumed across the country and around the world. The resulting emissions did not stop at state lines.
Allowing localities to impose damages for that activity would invite courts to establish climate and energy policy. A patchwork of judgments and settlements could regulate lawful conduct far beyond the jurisdiction in which a lawsuit was filed. The Constitution’s limited grant of authority leaves states substantial room to address genuinely local concerns. It does not permit one locality to govern economic activity throughout the country.
OPINION: THE SUPREME COURT BANNED RACE SORTING. COLLEGES FOUND A FIVE-DIGIT LOOPHOLE
Justice Antonin Scalia explained that originalism gives the Constitution “the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated.” That same commitment to the text constrains the judicial role. Judges must apply statutes as written and respect the limits the Constitution places on government power.
That discipline connects these cases. A constitutional right cannot be narrowed because judges regard its exercise as dangerous. An agreement with executive officials cannot assume the force of legislation. An alleged harm felt in one community cannot give a local lawsuit nationwide reach. This term gives the court three opportunities to enforce the Constitution and the law wherever its text and structure lead.
Richard P. Hutchison is president and general counsel of Landmark Legal Foundation. Landmark has filed amicus briefs in Viramontes v. Cook County and Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota and has joined a brief in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County.