D.C. v. Heller and the Death of Consistent Constitutional Jurisprudence

Abstract

When ruling on the day's most politicized legal issues, the Supreme Court has abandoned consistent interpretive theory. This paper will examine the Roberts Court's tendency to resolve divisive issues on a policy, rather than legal, basis, and will show that this trend is exemplified by the Court’s landmark Heller opinions. Part I of this paper will discuss the traditional importance of theories of Constitutional interpretation. Part II will examine the Constitutional theory subscribed to and consistently applied by Justice Scalia, perhaps the Court's most outspoken proponent of a consistent and defined interpretive style. Part III of this paper will delve into Justice Scalia's Heller opinion and show that the interpretive model used by the Court is simply an inconsistent gloss used to obscure a political ruling. This paper will conclude by showing that the interpretive inconsistency that marks the Heller opinion is not isolated to the Heller case but rather has become the rule for this Court.