The U.S. Supreme Court’s embrace of originalism, and particularly the “history and tradition” method of interpreting constitutional text, is often justified by its defenders as constraining judges from making up the law to match their preferences. This is a testable hypothesis. With the Bruen case in 2022, the Supreme Court moved away from a contemporary means-ends method of interpreting the Second Amendment to an originalist, “history and tradition” one. In this article, we analyze data on gun rights decisions handed down by lower federal courts from 2000 to 2023, finding that the Supreme Court’s switch to an originalist jurisprudence did not, in fact, constrain judges—rather, it corresponds with an increase in judicial discretion. Personal factors like partisan identity, gender, race, and careerist considerations shape judicial behavior in the post-Bruen era in ways they did not under the prior regime.
BalkinJack M.2013. The new originalism and the uses of history. Fordham Law Review82(2): 641–719.
2.
BarnettKent H.BoydChristina L.WalkerChristopher J.2018. The politics of selecting Chevron deference. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies15(3): 597–619.
3.
BarnettRandy E.SolumLawrence B.2023. Originalism after Dobbs, Bruen and Kennedy: The role of history and tradition. Northwestern University Law Review118(2): 435–493.
4.
BaudeWilliam. 2018. Originalism as a constraint on judges. University of Chicago Law Review84: 2213–2229.
5.
BermanMitchell N.2009. Originalism is bunk. New York University Law Review84(1): 1–96.
BlocherJosephLevineNoah. 2022. Constitutional gun litigation beyond the Second Amendment. NYU Annual Survey of American Law77(2): 175–198.
8.
BrenanMegan. 2December2022. Stark gender gap in gun ownership, views of gun laws in U.S. Gallup News. Available from news.gallup.com.
9.
BreyerStephen. 2024. Reading the Constitution: Why I chose pragmatism, not textualism. Simon & Schuster.
10.
BridgesKhiara M.2022. Race in the Roberts court. Harvard Law Review136(1): 23–169.
11.
BrownRebecca L.2003. History for the non-originalist. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy26(1): 69–82.
12.
BrownRebecca L.EpsteinLeeGulatiMitu. 2025. Guns, judges, and Trump. Duke Law Journal Online74: 81–109.
13.
CalvertClayPapandreaMary-Rose. 2023. The end of balancing? Text, history & tradition in First Amendment speech cases after Bruen. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy18(1): 59–103.
14.
CharlesJacob D.2023. The dead hand of a silent past: Bruen, gun rights, and the shackles of history. Duke Law Journal73(1): 67–155.
15.
ChemerinskyErwin. 2022. Worse than nothing: The dangerous fallacy of originalism. Yale University Press.
16.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1984. 467 U.S. 837.
17.
ChoiStephen J.GulatiMituPosnerEric A.2025. Trump’s lower court judges and religion: An initial appraisal. Journal of Legal Studies54(1): 1–41.
18.
ClineTimon. 2022. Originalist cherry-picking. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Per Curiam12: 2–13.
19.
CooperPerry. 27September2020. Barrett signaled willingness to go farther on guns than Scalia. Bloomberg Law. Available from news.bloomberglaw.com.
20.
CorleyPamela C.HowardRobert M.NixonDavid C.2005. The Supreme Court and opinion content: The use of the Federalist Papers. Political Research Quarterly58(2): 329–340.
21.
CrossFrank B.2013. The failed promise of originalism. Stanford University Press.
22.
District of Columbia v. Heller. 2008. 554 U.S. 570.
23.
DorfMichael C.2009. The aspirational constitution. George Washington Law Review77(5/6): 1631–1672.
24.
EpsteinLeeKonigDavid T.2019. The strange story of the Second Amendment in the federal courts, and why it matters. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy60(1): 147–170.
25.
EpsteinLeeLandesWilliam M.PosnerRichard A.2013. The behavior of federal judges: A theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. Harvard University Press.
26.
EvansMichael C.CatesCynthia L.McIntoshWayne V.2015. The reality of jurisprudence(?): Interpretive methods in the opinions of Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer. Justice System Journal36(1): 20–48.
27.
FallonRichard H.Jr.2011. Are originalist constitutional theories principled, or are they rationalizations for conservatism?Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy34(1): 5–28.
28.
FilindraAlexandraKaplanNoah. 2017. Testing theories of gun policy preferences among Blacks, Latinos, and whites in America. Social Science Quarterly98(2): 413–428.
29.
GienappJonathan. 2024. Against constitutional originalism: A historical critique. Yale University Press.
30.
GilesMichael W.HettingerVirginia A.PeppersTodd. 2001. Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly54(3): 623–641.
31.
GlueckKatie. 29January2013. Scalia: The Constitution is dead. Politico. Available from www.politico.com.
32.
GorsuchNeil. 2019. A republic, if you can keep it. Crown Forum.
33.
HalbrookStephen P.2023. Text-and-history or means-end scrutiny in Second Amendment cases?Federalist Society Review24: 54–76.
34.
HowardRobert M.SegalJeffrey A.2002. An original look at originalism. Law & Society Review36(1): 113–137.
35.
JiménezFelipe. Forthcoming. Tradition in constitutional adjudication. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities. Available from https://ssrn.com/abstract=4641821.
36.
JonesJeffrey M.31October2023. Majority in U.S. continues to favor stricter gun laws. Gallup News. Available from news.gallup.com.
37.
JouvenalJustin. 15July2024. Dismissal draws new scrutiny to Judge Cannon’s handling of Trump case. Washington Post.
38.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. 2022. 142 S. Ct. 2407.
39.
LawsonGary. 2012. No history, no certainty, no legitimacy. . . no problem: Originalism and the limits of legal theory. Florida Law Review64(6): 1551–1571.
40.
Lewis v. United States. 1980. 445 U.S. 55.
41.
LiptakAdam. 2December2019. After a long gap, Supreme Court poised to break silence on gun rights. New York Times.
42.
Logan v. United States. 1892. 144 U.S. 263.
43.
ManningKenneth L.CarpRobert A.HolmesLisa M.2020. The decision-making ideology of federal judges appointed by President Trump. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Working Paper, Dartmouth, MA. Available from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3716378.
44.
McDonald v. City of Chicago. 2010. 561 U.S. 742.
45.
Miller v. Texas. 1894. 153 U.S. 535.
46.
MillhiserIan. 26August2023. The edgelord of the federal judiciary. Vox. Available from www.vox.com.
47.
MocsaryGeorge A.2023. Treating young adults as citizens. Texas Review of Law & Politics27(2): 607–630.
48.
MuñozVincent Phillip. 2024. History and tradition in the Trump justices’ church-state jurisprudence. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science713:183–199.
49.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. 2022. 597 U.S. 1.
50.
PBS NewsHour. 11April2023. Watch: Special interest push behind 2nd Amendment a “fraud,” former chief justice said in 1991. Digitized clip from the December 16, 1991 broadcast of PBS NewsHour. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw.
51.
PowellH. Jefferson. 1985. The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review98(5): 885–948.
52.
Presser v. Illinois. 1886. 116 U.S. 252.
53.
RakoveJack N.1996. Original meanings: Politics and ideas in the making of the Constitution. Vintage Books.
54.
RodríguezCristina M.2024. Coercion, discretion, and the Roberts court. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science713:107–121.
55.
RosenthalLawrence. 2019. An empirical inquiry into the use of originalism: Fourth amendment jurisprudence during the career of Justice Scalia. Hastings Law Journal70(1): 75–172.
56.
RothschildZalman. 2022. Free exercise partisanship. Cornell Law Review107(4): 1067–1120.
57.
RubenEricBlocherJoseph. 2018. From theory to doctrine: An empirical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms after Heller. Duke Law Journal67(7): 1433–1509.
58.
RubenEricSmartRosannaRowhani-RahbarAli. 2024. One year post-Bruen: An empirical assessment. Virginia Law Review Online110: 20–51.
59.
RubinoKathryn. 21November2023. Judge James Ho uses fifth circuit decision to audition for Supreme Court. Again. Above the Law. Available from abovethelaw.com.
60.
SachsStephen E.2022. Originalism: Standard and procedure. Harvard Law Review135(3): 777–830.
61.
SamahaAdam M.GermanoRoy. 2017. Are commercial speech cases ideological? An empirical inquiry. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal25(3): 827–896.
62.
SamahaAdam M.GermanoRoy. 2018. Is the Second Amendment a second-class right?Duke Law Journal Online68: 57–71.
63.
SamahaAdam M.GermanoRoy. 2019. Judicial ideology emerges, at last, in Second Amendment cases. Charleston Law Review13(2): 315–360.
64.
ScaliaAntonin. 1989. Originalism: The lesser evil. University of Cincinnati Law Review57(3): 849–865.
65.
ScaliaAntonin. 1997. A matter of interpretation: Federal courts and the law, ed. GutmannAmy, 1st edition. Princeton University Press.
SiegelReva B.2008. Dead or alive: Originalism as popular constitutionalism in Heller. Harvard Law Review122(1): 191–245.
68.
SiegelReva B.2023. Memory games: Dobbs’s originalism as anti-democratic living constitutionalism—and some pathways for resistance. Texas Law Review101(5): 1127–1204.
69.
SiegelReva B.2024. The levels-of-generality game: History and tradition in the Roberts court. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy47(3): 563–612.
70.
SmithMark W.2022. NYSRPA v. Bruen: A Supreme Court victory for the right to keep and bear arms—and a strong rebuke to “inferior courts.”Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Per Curiam24: 1–10.
71.
SmithMichael L.2023. Originalism, common good constitutionalism, and transparency. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy46(3): 1217–1241.
72.
SmithPeter J.2004. Sources of federalism: An empirical analysis of the court’s quest for original meaning. UCLA Law Review52(1): 217–288.
73.
SolumLawrence B.2015. The fixation thesis: The role of historical fact in original meaning. Notre Dame Law Review91(1): 1–78.
74.
StraussDavid A.2010. The living constitution. Oxford University Press.
75.
ThomasSteff Danielle.9February2024. Trump vow to NRA if reelected: “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.”The Hill. Available from thehill.com.
76.
TolerLorianne UpdikeCapodilupoRobert. 2023. The constraint of history. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy46(2): 457–546.
77.
United States v. Bullock2022. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203513.
78.
United States v. Cruikshank. 1875. 92 U.S. 542.
79.
United States v. Love.2022. 647 F. Supp. 3d 664, 670 (N.D. Ind. 2022).
80.
United States v. Miller. 1939. 307 U.S. 174.
81.
United States v. Rahimi. 2024. 602 U.S. 680.
82.
Vidal v. Elster. 2024. 602 U.S. 286.
83.
WinklerAdam. 2011. Gunfight: The battle over the right to bear arms in America. W.W. Norton.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
