Teleology as an Originalist Tool
To understand what something is, we have to first understand its ultimate end. That’s a simple principle. And it’s one we intuitively accept in our everyday life. When we’re building a piece of furniture, we don’t just read the instructions—we first peek at the box to figure out how the piece of furniture should look when it’s completed. We do that because we know that by looking at the ultimate end of our task, we will better understand the discrete instructions and steps before us. This practice—of identifying something’s ends to better understand its essence—is not new. And it has a name: teleology.
Teleology may offer something to those trying to uncover the original meaning of the United States Constitution. Just as seeing the completed piece of furniture helps us understand the building instructions, pinpointing the ends of the Constitution might help us interpret its sparse text.
So, this Article makes a modest argument: Teleology has played and, perhaps, could still play a role in our interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, historically, when it came to the Constitution, teleology was in the mix of interpretive tools. And, today, it could similarly factor in as one way—of many—to help us interpret the Constitution. This Article, therefore, makes two narrow arguments, one historical and the other theoretical.
As a historical matter, teleology has roots in American constitutional history. When the framers were drafting the Constitution and later interpreting it, they invoked teleology. In fact, its use has persisted, being employed just a few terms ago at the Supreme Court.
As a theoretical matter, teleology might still be able to serve as an originalist tool. Indeed, its use is consistent with originalist theory. For an Original Methods Originalist, teleology can be understood as an original interpretive rule that was employed by the ratifying public as they read the Constitution. For Public Meaning Originalists, teleology might just constitute another type of contextual enrichment. Using teleology is also consistent with how we communicate in everyday life; we often consider the original ends of a thing when trying to understand its essence. At bottom, then, identifying the Constitution’s original teloi may help interpreters better enter the minds of the ratifying public and understand the text just as they did.
In these respects, teleology could advance—not undermine—the goals of modern-day originalism. At first glance, one might think that originalists would or should reject its invocation. Teleology, like purpose, might strike an originalist as too indeterminate. But originalists are committed, by their own principles, to think about teleology, too. Doing so may help interpreters better honor the original meaning of the Constitution.
Cite as: Elias Neibart, Teleology as an Originalist Tool, 18 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 131 (2024).