The Failures of Modern Textualism and the Case for Contextualism: Understanding the Supreme Court’s Philosophies Post-Scalia

Modern textualism, as the dominant interpretive philosophy of the U.S. Supreme Court, has increasingly exhibited internal inconsistencies that undermine its foundational principles.This paper examines the evolution of textualism from Justice Antonin Scalia's foundational framework to its fragmented contemporary application under the current court, divided into the camps of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.Through an analysis of three landmark cases-District of Columbia v. Heller, Bostock v. Clayton County, and Niz-Chavez v. Garland-this study highlights the divergence between literalist and pragmatic textualism, revealing how both approaches often fail to provide coherent or consistent legal interpretations.The paper critiques the shortcomings of rigid literalism, which isolates statutory language from historical and legislative context, leading to judicial outcomes that stray from true textualist intent.Further, it argues for a transition toward a contextualist approach that preserves textualism's focus on the written word while integrating historical, linguistic, and practical considerations.By emphasizing the necessity of contextual analysis in statutory interpretation, this paper advocates for a more methodologically sound and jurisprudentially stable approach that aligns legal interpretation with the reasonable understanding of laws at the time of their enactment.