Textualism confounds the linkage between jurisprudential methodology and philosophy. In popular conception, a judge’s choice of interpretive tools is bound to be tightly intertwined with the ideological flavor of that judge’s outcomes: originalism or strict constructionism lead to conservative results, while living constitutionalism or purposivism lead to liberal results. Textualism, once pilloried as a tool of the right, is now making a play at escaping that perceptual mold. As the methodology has become more and more ubiquitous, it has taken on a new character. It now boasts of broad acceptance throughout the judiciary and even such conservative paragons as Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have sometimes followed textualism toward what might seem rather progressive outcomes. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis,1 decided last term, is sure to join cases like Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, New Prime v. Oliviera, and the quintessential Bostock v. Clayton County in the pantheon of progressive textualism.
Missouri’s Sandra Sperino makes this point in her forthcoming article, When is Discrimination Harmful?, where she explores Muldrow’s dominating use of textualism to drastically expand the reach of employment discrimination laws. But, in its quest to excise subjective applications of Title VII, the Muldrow Court opened just as many doors as it closed—leaving lower courts to struggle with applications that are no less subjective than the standard Muldrow abandoned. What’s the root of this inextricable challenge? Sperino posits that the concept of “harm,” a foundational component of anti-discrimination law, inevitably “rests on judgments that cannot be answered through the statutory text alone.” Continue reading “New Standards, New Questions, and Old Answers”
The post New Standards, New Questions, and Old Answers appeared first on Jotwell.
