textualists

Textualism is a theory of legal interpretation that holds the meaning of a legal text should be determined primarily by its text's ordinary meaning at the time of enactment, reading in light of its grammatical structure and its place within the text as a whole. It downplays extrinsic sources such as legislative history, intent of lawmakers, or policy consequences, unless those sources are necessary to resolve ambiguities in the text. For statutes and constitutional provisions, textualists seek to discern the public meaning of the words used, sometimes using dictionaries, linguistic canons, and semantic analysis.

Prominent advocates: In the United States, textualism rose to prominence through the work and jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who argued that judges should interpret laws by the words themselves rather than motives; other advocates include Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, among jurists and scholars. The approach is often associated with the broader originalist framework, though textualism specifically emphasizes the language's meaning rather than intent.

Criticism and debates: Critics argue that pure textualism can fail to account for ambiguities, drafting errors, or changing social understandings, and that legislative history can illuminate purposes the text alone does not convey. Critics also contend that ignoring context may produce rigid or unjust outcomes, while supporters maintain that looking to the text helps maintain democratic legitimacy by respecting enacted law as enacted.