ABSTRACT
In virtually every area of constitutional law, the Supreme Court increasingly is relying on tradition as its guide in decisionmaking. The Court is often explicit in stating that rights should be protected only if there has been a tradition of judicial safeguards, and its analysis frequently is accompanied by a lengthy exegesis on common-law practices. Throughout the twentieth century, the Supreme Court has continued to cite history and tradition as a basis for its holdings. Although history long has been a part of Supreme Court opinions, in the past decade there appears to have been a much greater reliance on history and tradition as a method of constitutional interpretation. Even though the Court always has discussed historical practices in justifying its conclusions, the emphasis on tradition as a limit on the scope of rights is new.
