Smith on Holistic Constitutional Interpretation

Michael L. Smith, University of Oklahoma College of Law, has published Holistic Constitutional Interpretation. Here is the abstract.

This Article identifies and advocates for holistic constitutional interpretation, a method in which interpreters consider disputed constitutional terms or provisions in the context of the Constitution as a whole to gain insight into otherwise inscrutable textual questions. Holistic interpretation resembles, but is distinct from, alternative methods like structural argument and intratextualism—maintaining a focus on constitutional text that distinguishes it from structural methods, but approaching context in a more flexible manner than the more cabined intratextualist approach. While some scholars recognize holistic interpretation as a distinct method, their focus is often fixed on federal constitutional law. This Article adds to existing discussions of holistic interpretation by demonstrating how the method pervades the interpretive methods of a wide range of legal topics. Courts interpret contracts, wills, deeds, judgments, and statutes in a holistic manner—urging consideration of the whole document when interpreting a provision in dispute. Holistic interpretation is common in state constitutional cases as well, with the vast majority of state supreme courts purporting to interpret state constitutions as a whole. Holistic interpretation enriches textualist methodology, which might otherwise become overly technical or hyper-fixated on arcane definitional and grammatical disputes. It also takes the wind out of the sails of alternate interpretive methodologies that thrive on perceptions of ambiguity and uncertainty. While its implications for individual rights are mixed, holistic interpretation strengthens textualist methodology and is a useful tool for those who might otherwise be troubled by abstract or ambiguous constitutional language.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.