Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states? State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaska's unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level. What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states.
Featuring:

Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill Project
Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
Prof. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Savannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School
(Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy