A Matter of Interpretation by {author}: summary and why it matters

What it argues

Scalia argues that a judge's job is to apply the law as written, not to discover its purpose or intent beyond its text. In statutory cases, he says, the text and its context are what Congress enacted, and legislative history is unreliable and invites judges to pick friends from a crowd. In constitutional cases, he defends originalism: the meaning of a provision is the meaning it had when adopted.

He also criticizes the notion of a living Constitution, which in his view lets judges update the text according to their own sense of progress, shifting power from the people to unelected lawyers. The Constitution, he says, exists to take certain questions out of the day-to-day political process, and he concedes that an originalist approach is sometimes not the one a judge would like, as in the case of flag burning.

The book includes essays from Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon and Ronald Dworkin who respond critically.

Why it matters

This short book is the plainest statement of the originalist and textualist creed that has reshaped the federal bench. The critics' contributions make it a useful starting point for those who want to understand both sides.

About the author

Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) taught law at the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago and served on the D.C. Circuit before President Reagan appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1986. He was a leading voice on the Court for three decades, and his close friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an opponent in many cases, became well known. The lectures were delivered at Princeton in 1995.

Who should read it

Law students, citizens and journalists covering the courts.