Supreme Court Should Include Black Americans' Constitutional Views in Reconstruction Amendment Interpretations
Source: David H. Gans. "The Supreme Court has a chance to revolutionize its approach to the law.." April 15, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that when the Supreme Court interprets the post-Civil War constitutional amendments in upcoming cases, they should consider what Black Americans thought these amendments meant, not just white politicians. Black people held many conventions and played a huge role in getting these amendments passed, but the Court has ignored their voices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court should incorporate the constitutional understandings and activism of Black Americans when interpreting the Reconstruction Amendments in upcoming landmark cases
Premises
- Black Americans held over 50 conventions from 1864-1869 and played a critical role in shaping the meaning and ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments
- Black conventions articulated comprehensive visions of freedom, equality, and citizenship that influenced congressional Republicans and public debate
- Black voting rights were essential to the ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments, as Black voters provided the make-or-break votes in Southern states
- The Supreme Court has shamefully never cited any Black figure from Reconstruction in a majority opinion, erasing their contributions
- Recent justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas have begun drawing on Black Convention work, suggesting openness to more inclusive history
- Understanding the original public meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments requires including Black Americans as a particularly critical part of 'the public'
Assumptions
- Original public meaning should include all significant voices in public debate, not just white legislators
- Historical accuracy requires acknowledging all groups who shaped constitutional meaning
- The Supreme Court's interpretation methods should evolve to be more historically comprehensive
- Black Americans' constitutional understandings are legally relevant to modern interpretation