Textualism is an approach to interpreting laws that emphasizes solely on the words within the law, disregarding any speculation about the intentions or desires of the law’s authors. Despite the misconception that this method is exclusive to conservatives, it can actually result in fair and equitable outcomes for all individuals. A recent court case exemplifies this, as a judge employed textualism to rule against workplace discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Textualism is an approach to interpreting laws that emphasizes solely examining the words of the law itself, without speculating on the intentions or objectives of the lawmakers. It advocates for relying on the literal meaning of the words in the law to determine its interpretation. For instance, if a law states “no dogs allowed in the park,” a textualist would assert that it means exactly what it says – dogs are prohibited in the park. They would not attempt to infer the reasons behind the lawmakers’ decision or their intended outcomes. Some individuals perceive textualism as a conservative legal approach because it disregards the lawmakers’ intentions or goals. However, applying textualism can sometimes lead to unexpected or progressive results. A notable example is the Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. case, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. In this case, the court had to determine whether it was legal for employers to discriminate against employees based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Neil Gorsuch, often associated with the textualist approach of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, authored the court’s opinion. He argued that the plain meaning of the words in the law, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, also encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This outcome was surprising and progressive, as many people had assumed that the law only addressed discrimination based on biological sex.
Textualism is a legal theory or approach to interpreting statutes or legal documents that emphasizes the plain meaning of the text itself, rather than considering legislative intent or other external factors.
Textualism differs from other approaches, such as purposivism or intentionalism, by focusing solely on the words and structure of the statute, rather than considering the legislative history or the intent of the lawmakers.
No, textualism is just one of several valid approaches to statutory interpretation. Different judges and legal scholars may prefer different approaches based on their own beliefs and interpretations of the law.
While textualism is often associated with conservative judges, it is not inherently biased towards any particular political ideology. The application of textualism can lead to a variety of outcomes, depending on the specific language and context of the statute being interpreted.
Yes, textualism can also be applied to the interpretation of constitutional provisions. Just like with statutory interpretation, textualism in constitutional interpretation focuses on the original meaning of the words and phrases used in the Constitution.
One limitation of textualism is that it may not always provide clear answers in cases where the text is ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. In such situations, judges may need to consider other factors, such as legislative intent or public policy, to arrive at a decision.
Yes, textualism generally prioritizes the literal meaning of the words used in the statute. However, some textualists argue that the overall purpose of the law can be derived from the text itself, while others believe that the purpose should be disregarded in favor of a strict textual analysis.
Yes, textualism can evolve over time as new cases and legal arguments shape its application. Just like any legal theory, textualism is subject to interpretation and refinement based on the evolving understanding of language and legal principles.
Yes, textualism has faced criticism for potentially leading to rigid and narrow interpretations of the law, overlooking legislative intent, and failing to consider the broader societal implications of legal decisions.
Textualism has gained significant prominence in recent years, particularly with the appointment of textualist judges to the Supreme Court. However, it is not the only approach used by judges and legal scholars, and other interpretive methods continue to be employed in various legal contexts.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/textualism/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Textualism. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/textualism/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Textualism. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/textualism/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Textualism. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/textualism/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts