Stephen Breyer Criticizes Textualism in New Book, Highlights Consequences for Abortion and Gun Rights

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's latest book argues for a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation, warning against the restrictive impacts of textualism on key issues.

Breyer's book, 'Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,' criticizes the Supreme Court's conservative majority for wrongly decided cases on abortion and gun rights.
The book examines major Supreme Court cases, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, to argue against a textualist approach.
Breyer argues that the Constitution should be interpreted as a workable set of principles for subsequent generations, not strictly through its original text.
The retired justice warns that textualism fails to account for modern developments and practical realities, particularly in regulating guns and protecting women's reproductive rights.
In his book, Breyer does not directly criticize his former colleagues but cautions against the exclusive reliance on textualism and originalism for interpreting the Constitution.