News Summary
Federal Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman are leading an innovative course on Originalism at various law schools across Texas. By focusing on the historical context of the U.S. Constitution, students are learning the foundational roots of American law. The judges emphasize the necessity of understanding original intent in legal interpretations, asserting that this approach leads to a more balanced judicial philosophy. The course aims to inspire future lawyers to appreciate the principles that uphold the republic, while addressing the ongoing debates surrounding originalism in modern jurisprudence.
Texas is currently witnessing an innovative educational initiative aimed at enhancing constitutional understanding among aspiring lawyers. US District Judges Brantley Starr and Mark Pittman have taken the lead in developing and teaching a course titled “Originalism & the Origins of the Federal Constitution” at various Texas law schools, including Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law.
The course is specifically designed to explore the original intentions of the drafters of the Constitution and educate students about the fundamental concepts embedded in the legal document. By examining historical context, Starr and Pittman aim to prepare future legal professionals to navigate the complexities of constitutional law through an originalist lens. This method of interpretation seeks to understand laws as they were conceived at the time the nation was founded, a perspective that has gained traction notably among recently appointed Supreme Court justices.
During the course’s final class, Starr urged students to contemplate their crucial role in preserving the republic, echoing sentiments attributed to founding figure Benjamin Franklin regarding the responsibilities of citizenship. The judges maintain that acquiring an understanding of originalist principles is vital, especially in today’s legal landscape where the number of originalist or textualist justices has increased.
While there is a growing emphasis on originalism in legal education, critics argue that it confines legal interpretation to outdated ideas that may not be relevant in contemporary society. Nonetheless, Pittman advocates for a return to the Constitution to ensure that judicial outcomes reflect legitimate interpretations rather than personal beliefs. For Starr and Pittman, it remains essential to adhere to a neutral set of principles rather than allowing individual perspectives to overshadow citizen intentions at the time the Constitution was drafted.
Both judges were appointed to the Northern District of Texas by former President Donald Trump. They express hope that judges from across the political spectrum will contribute to the course in future iterations, further diversifying the approach to teaching constitutional law.
Originally established by US District Judge Charles Eskridge, this course was inspired by Justice Clarence Thomas’s commentary on the lack of historical perspective in legal education. Eskridge first introduced the course at the University of Houston, utilizing texts from “The Founders’ Constitution” to immerse students in primary historical materials instead of relying solely on court or scholarly secondary interpretations.
Collaboration between Starr and Pittman has facilitated the co-teaching of this course across multiple law schools, including Texas A&M School of Law. This educational approach allows students to engage directly with the historical documents that underpin American governance, greatly enhancing their understanding of constitutional principles.
The dean of the Dedman School of Law has emphasized the significant advantages that students gain through the expertise of judges. Additionally, the dean of Berkeley Law recognizes the unique opportunity for law students to engage directly with sitting judges, something rarely available in standard legal education.
Pittman has notably adjusted his approach to civil trial juries after immersing himself in historical materials, advocating for the use of 12-member juries as a means to achieve balanced decision-making in trials. The moves made by Starr and Pittman reflect a broader trend among conservative judges who embrace originalism, along with the accompanying critiques and discussions surrounding their judicial interpretations.
In summary, the course on originalism being taught by federal judges at Texas law schools aims to foster a deeper understanding of the Constitution among future legal practitioners. By utilizing original texts and encouraging critical thinking about the role of interpretation in law, it seeks to equip students with the skills necessary for effective legal practice in a rapidly evolving judicial landscape.
Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic
- Bloomberg Law: Federal Judges School Future Lawyers on Originalism
- Salt Lake Tribune: Letter on Justice Clarence Thomas
- NBC News: Originalism Dead Letter? Supreme Court Majority Accused of Abandoning Legal Principles
- Deseret News: Why Constitutional Originalism Is Not a Partisan Legal Theory
- Wikipedia: Originalism
