Allen Rostron
93 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 26
This Essay argues that the Supreme Court should be willing to admit when history is inconclusive when analyzing issues from a historical perspective. In United States v. Rahimi, the Court stretched and strained to come up with historical justifications for its decision rather than simply acknowledging that history was an inconclusive and inadequate basis for deciding the case. The Supreme Court candidly acknowledged when it encountered inconclusive history in major cases decided in the past. The Court should return to that tradition and treat historical analysis as a crucially important element of constitutional decision-making—without pretending that inconclusive history provides answers when it really does not.
