ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the US Supreme Court’s application of various methods of constitutional interpretation and evaluates the relative consistency or inconsistency with which the Court implements those techniques. One example of the Court’s use of interpretive theory is Obergefell v. Hodges, in which a majority of the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to allow gay marriage. Another example of the Court’s inconsistent interpretational methodology is Texas v. Johnson, in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the conviction of a defendant for publicly burning an American flag. The Court accepted the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that, ‘Johnson’s conduct was symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment,’ in that, given the context, those who observed the display would have understood the message Johnson intended to convey. Applying the O’Brien test, the Court found that the Indiana statute was clearly within the constitutional powers of the state.
