Legal approach

We deploy a disciplined set of legal methodologies to challenge executive, legislative, and judicial decisions that prioritize desired outcomes over fidelity to the Constitution and consistent rule-of-law process. These methods include textualism and originalism—anchored in the original public meaning of the Constitution’s language as understood, where necessary, in light of history, tradition, and the broader constitutional structure established by such text. 

Our approach aims to be scrupulously neutral and to resonate with jurists across the ideological spectrum. These methodologies carry no inherent political bias when faithfully applied, and they tend to produce a stabilizing effect on legal interpretation—applying the same principles regardless of which parties control the political branches. 

Areas of Interest

The First Amendment

We seek to affirm and reinvigorate First Amendment protections that are increasingly under threat from efforts to narrow their scope by, among other things, asking the wrong historical questions. These vital protections can, and should, be defended on originalist grounds by asking the right questions and drawing from the full breadth of relevant history and tradition.

This includes giving primacy to the constitutional text, examining the public understandings of the proponents of the First Amendment and others who embraced a broader conception of those freedoms, and considering the scope of the phrase “the judicial power of the United States” and its implications regarding the proper judicial role in safeguarding core constitutional freedoms.

Judicial Power & Authority

We defend the judiciary’s essential role in upholding the Constitution and enforcing the law. This authority is rooted in the original meaning of “the judicial power” and reinforced by historical precedent. Lessons drawn from periods when monarchs or parliaments disregarded judicial authority—sparking fierce resistance—offer a historical baseline not of what the Framers sought to imitate, but what they rejected in the Constitution. Far from a modern innovation, a properly empowered and independent judiciary is an essential component of the Constitution's checks and balances against governmental overreach.

Executive Power & Authority

We critically examine the modern use of executive orders and discretionary policymaking, particularly where they stretch or distort constitutional boundaries. Our approach draws from the historical context of executive power, with careful attention to what the Framers sought to repudiate in their rejection of monarchic rule. The constitutional duty to “faithfully execute the laws” provides both a textual and historical constraint on expansive claims of executive authority and discretion, whether through administrative action or the direct exercise of executive power. 

In this light, legal principles used to challenge excessive legislative delegation or agency overreach can, and should, be applied equally to unchecked exercises of executive power, reinforcing the separation of powers.

Legislative Power & Authority

We also critically examine the exercise of legislative authority with a similar eye towards maintaining the Constitution’s separation of powers and limited enumeration of federal legislative power. We will look to issues such as the original public meaning of particular Congressional powers, the scope and application of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and constitutional limits on delegating legislative power.

We won't stop there

Additional areas of focus include complex constitutional questions such as birthright citizenship, the scope and limits of the Executive’s spending discretion—particularly when used as leverage in conjunction with unconstitutional conditions—and the intersection of due process and equal protection with other fundamental rights.

In each case, our analysis seeks to apply principled, textual, and historically grounded legal reasoning to protect individual liberty, preserve constitutional boundaries, and ensure that no branch of government exceeds its rightful authority, regardless of who controls any given branch at a particular political moment.