Abstract

Originalism explores the intentions for, or understandings of, constitutional rights held by drafters of the Constitution or founders of the United States. This qualitative historical analysis evaluates the accuracy and adequacy of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ citations of founders’ intentions for, or understandings of, free press rights in opinions addressing journalists’ rights to cover and access court proceedings. Our research found that justices some times have accurately and adequately cited founders’ writings. Yet, justices too often have cited court opinions and other documents from the 1800s or 1900s to support their assertions about original intentions for or understandings of freedom of speech or of the press and First Amendment values. When referencing writings by founders, justices sometimes provided inadequate context. Such practices have harmed the accuracy of legal and historical records. To improve accuracy in future opinions, justices need to stop citing sections of previous opinions that lack accurate citation, adequate citation, or proper context.

摘要

原旨主义探讨宪法起草者或美国创始人对宪法权利的意图或理解。这种定性历史分析评估了美国最高法院法官在涉及记者报道和参与法庭诉讼的权利的意见中引用创始人对新闻自由权利的意图或理解的准确性和充分性。我们的研究发现，法官有时会准确、充分地引用创始人的著作。然而，法官们经常引用 1800 年代或 1900 年代的法院意见和其他文件来支持他们对言论自由、新闻自由和第一修正案价值观的初衷或理解的主张。当引用创始人的著作时，法官有时提供的背景不充分。这种做法损害了法律和历史记录的准确性。为了提高未来意见的准确性，法官需要停止引用先前意见中缺乏准确引用、充分引用或适当上下文的部分。