How Do Judges Decide Which History Counts?

Hon. James A. Wynn
Hon. James A. Wynn

This essay is a guest contribution to the Marquette Law School Faculty Blog by the Hon. James A. Wynn, L’79, judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Originalism has quietly transformed one of the judiciary’s central responsibilities. Judges are no longer asked merely to interpret constitutional text and precedent. Increasingly, they are asked to resolve contested questions of professional history—and their historical judgments often determine the scope of constitutional rights.

That transformation raises institutional questions that deserve far more attention than they have received. In particular: How do judges decide which history counts? Or how should courts go about determining relevant history?

Two Supreme Court decisions this past summer, in June 2026, highlight the crux of the problem.

In the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, Justice Clarence Thomas penned a dissent which ostensibly presents an extensive historical argument supporting its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause as one narrowly tailored to restoring the rights of former slaves. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence surveyed that same history and rejected it as a “narrow vision of the Fourteenth Amendment [that] bears little relationship to the history of its ratification.”

Continue ReadingHow Do Judges Decide Which History Counts?

Prof. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture on How Implicit Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution

Thomas W. Merrill amd Joe Kearney at a podium.
Dean Kearney (left) welcomes a question for Prof. Merrill after the Hallows Lecture.

The Law School had the privilege earlier this week to present our annual Hallows Lecture. The occasion remembers E. Harold Hallows, a Milwaukee lawyer who taught part-time at Marquette Law School during 1930–1958 and then served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1958 until his death in 1974, the last six years as chief justice. For the lecture, we welcomed Thomas W. Merrill, the Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law at Columbia University, one of the nation’s most widely respected legal scholars.

Prof. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture, delivered on March 2 in the Lubar Center before 200 people (we counted), was rather a tour de force. Here were the title and advance description:

“Unstated”: How Three Implicit Legal Ideas Have Sidelined Congress and Empowered the President and the Courts

Why has Congress, the constitutional keystone of the federal government, become so ineffective, relative to the president and the federal judiciary? While many explanations have been offered, one important but unappreciated reason is legal ideas—not just widely discussed concepts such as the unitary executive and originalist interpretation of the Constitution but also, and perhaps even more importantly, unstated ideas that have taken hold without much explicit discussion or acknowledgment. This lecture will identify and discuss three largely unquestioned ideas that have combined to deform our constitutional regime. Their result has been that the president wields immense power in the guise of issuing orders and binding regulations and the courts exercise great power in the guise of interpreting the Constitution and laws, while Congress stands largely out of the picture. While there is no magic incantation for restoring a proper constitutional balance, an important first step is to recognize the role that unstated ideas have played in the transformation, so that they can be unmasked and debated in the open.

Even in advance of its publication this coming fall in the Marquette Law Review and Marquette Lawyer, Professor Merrill serialized the lecture this week for a national audience on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Following an introductory post by Professor Eugene Volokh, the blog featured the following posts the past four days, March 2–5:

  1. How Unstated Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution
  2. The “Unitary Executive” Theory’s Contribution to the Deformation of the Constitution
  3. The Role of Delegation Theories in Deforming the Constitution
  4. How the Supreme Court’s Conception of Its Role Contributes to the Deformation of the Constitution

The text of the entire lecture as prepared for presentation can be read here, and a video of the lecture is available to view here.

Continue ReadingProf. Merrill’s Hallows Lecture on How Implicit Legal Ideas Have Deformed the Constitution

Collecting Posts on Seventh Circuit Day

It was a great privilege for Marquette University Law School to host the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Eckstein Hall earlier this semester (September 25, 2025). The following blog posts form a now-complete series seeking to capture some aspects of the day:

  1. Seventh Circuit Day, Part 1: The Cases and Arguments (Nov. 3, 2025) by Joseph D. Kearney
  2. Effective Appellate Advocacy: Advice from the Bench (Nov. 5, 2025) by Melissa Love Koenig
  3. Appellate Judges Give a Window into How They Do Their Work (Nov. 7, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk
  4. Praise for an Exemplar of the Marquette Lawyer—and of a Judge (Nov. 11, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk
  5. “Behind the Scenes” of Organizing a Visit by an Appellate Court (Nov. 13, 2025) by Anna Fodor
  6. Seventh Circuit Day at Eckstein Hall “Felt Like This ‘Event’” and Offered Valuable Lessons (Nov. 18, 2025) by Alan J. Borsuk

Sincere thanks to all—the Court and its staff, those at the Law School, and members of the Milwaukee legal community—who contributed to this inspiring educational experience.

Continue ReadingCollecting Posts on Seventh Circuit Day