A provocative, brilliant analysis by recently retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s supermajority and makes the case for a better way to interpret the Constitution . “You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books “A dissent for the ages.” — The Washington Post “Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” — The Boston Globe The relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written.

This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations. Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the purposes of statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another.

He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.

In a world where constitutional interpretation often leans on rigid textualism, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism stands out as a thought-provoking exploration. The author invites readers to navigate the Constitution through the lens of pragmatism, advocating for a method that aligns more closely with the evolving societal context. This book is a call to embrace a dynamic and realistic approach to understanding and applying constitutional principles in today's diverse legal landscape.

Pragmatism offers a flexible method for interpreting the Constitution bridging the gap between past and present. Textualism limits understanding of constitutional principles stifling adaptability in an ever-changing society. Adopting pragmatism in constitutional matters ensures more relevant inclusive legal interpretations.

Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism delves into how the Constitution should be understood in the context of modern societal dynamics.\ The author argues that clinging to textualism limits the rich complexity and adaptability that the Constitution requires to meet contemporary challenges. \ By adopting a pragmatic approach, the reader discovers a method that balances historical reverence with present-day relevance.\ The book meticulously breaks down the principles of pragmatism versus textualism, illustrating through profound analysis how law interacts with change.\ The author urges that pragmatism allows for a fluid interpretation, which more accurately reflects the needs and values of a diverse and evolving society.\ This is juxtaposed against textualism's rigidity, which can often lead to exclusionary or outdated applications of constitutional rights.\ Through insightful examples and case studies, the author presents a compelling case for pragmatism by demonstrating how it can be utilized to reflect societal shifts\ and practical realities.\ These examples underscore how a pragmatic framework offers more than just an interpretive lens; it provides legal foundations that foster inclusivity, progression, and adaptability.\ In confronting criticisms of pragmatism, the book acknowledges potential challenges while passionately rebutting these points with evidence and reason.\ It is a scholarly yet accessible narrative that equips readers with the tools to critically assess both traditional and modern approaches,\ empowering them to be informed participants in constitutional discourse.\

This book challenges the rigidity of textualism by proposing an interpretive approach that respects historical context while remaining adaptable to modern societal shifts.\ The author addresses common critiques and provides a clear, reasoned defense of pragmatism's flexibility, reinforcing its importance in contemporary legal frameworks.\ By combining scholarly insights with practical examples, readers gain a deeper understanding of constitutional interpretation that champions innovation while honoring foundational principles.\ Its accessible language fosters both legal thought and broader engagement with essential constitutional debates.\ Reading the Constitution stands out through its ability to engage a diverse audience, offering profound insights into the Constitution’s role and relevance today.\ Its pragmatic approach serves as a bridge between the law and those it serves, emphasizing the importance of adaptability and inclusivity in legal interpretation.\