Abstract:The tension between originalism and stare decisis is well known. Many of the Supreme Court’s most significant constitutional decisions are completely unmoored from the original public understanding of the Constitution. A Supreme Court Justice may recognize that a given precedent is non-originalist, but follow it anyway because of the doctrine of stare decisis. Or, a Supreme Court Justice may decide to deviate from stare decisis because that precedent is non-originalist. The Supreme Court’s unique status, which is perched atop our judiciary, affords its members leeway to make either decision. Lower court judges, however, do not have that sort of discretion. Consider a judge on a federal circuit court of appeals. First, she is bound by Supreme Court precedents interpreting the Constitution, regardless of whether those precedent are originalist or not. No matter how wrong a given Supreme Court case is, that precedent must be followed. Second, she is bound by circuit precedent interpreting the Constitution, regardless of whether that precedent is originalist or not. Only an en banc majority can reverse circuit precedent, and those proceedings are quite rare. An originalist circuit judge would only have free jurisprudential rein in the rare case of first impression, where neither the Supreme Court nor the circuit court had considered a particular constitutional question. Those cases are even rarer. Even then, the circuit judge would still be at a disadvantage. Circuit courts seldom receive the wealth of originalist party and amicus briefs that are directed to the Supreme Court. Here, the circuit judge will often have to do all of her own originalist research—the proverbial law office history report—without the benefit of the adversarial process. In short, it’s tough for a lower-court judge to be a constitutional originalist. But it can be done. Part I of this essay explains when a lower-court judge can be an originalist. Part II explains how a lower-court judge can be an originalist.

The Role of Precedent in Judicial Decision

Precedent and the Rule of Law

Roles and the Moral Practice of Precedent

Judicial Pronouncements: Unravelling the Significance of Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendi in Legal Precedents

What About the Precedent: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Common Law

Reasoning with previous decisions: beyond the doctrine of precedent

Following Lower-Court Precedent

"Precedent" in the Narrative of Chinese Legal History

Speaking Law to Power: The Strategic Use of Precedent of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Precedent and Law – Australia

The Notion of ‘Persuasive Value’ of External Precedent in International Criminal Law

Originalism and Stare Decisis in the Lower Courts

When Precedents Clash

Exploring the Impact of Judicial Activism on Legal Precedent: A Comparative Analysis

The Use of Precedent and External Case-Law by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

United Kingdom, United Courts? Hierarchical Interactions and Attention to Precedent in the British Judiciary

The slow death of a dogma? The prohibition of legislative history in the 20th century

A Role for Precedent in the Determination of the Standard of Review Applicable by Investment Arbitral Tribunals? A Case Study of ect-based Energy Disputes Against Spain

Toward representing interpretation in factor-based models of precedent

Applying Laws Across Time: Disentangling the 'Always Speaking' Principles

State Constitutional Law in 1939–1940