textualist

Textualism is a theory of statutory and constitutional interpretation that seeks to ascertain meaning primarily from the text's ordinary language. Textualists hold that the law's meaning is best derived from the words chosen by the legislature, read in their grammatical and contextual sense, and that nontextual sources such as legislative history should play little or no role in interpretation.

Practitioners examine the text itself—grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and common dictionaries—often applying canons of construction to resolve ambiguities. In constitutional contexts, textualists may emphasize the text's original public meaning at the time of enactment or ratification, sometimes maintaining that the court should not deploy modern values to rewrite the text.

Textualism rose to prominence in late 20th-century jurisprudence, associated with Justice Antonin Scalia and, in the following decades, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. It is frequently contrasted with purposivism, which seeks to realize a statute's or constitution's purpose, and with broader forms of originalism that stress historical understandings beyond the text.

Critics argue that strict adherence to text can yield unjust results when the text is vague, silent on policy, or inconsistent with contemporary values. They contend that legislative history and policy considerations can illuminate meaning and legislative intent. Proponents respond that a text-centered approach limits judicial discretion and respects democratic legislation.