Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 42

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

7 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

parallel” language); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 
570,  600–601  (2008)  (“Our  interpretation  is  confirmed  by 
analogous  arms-bearing  rights  in  state  constitutions  that 
preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second 
Amendment”); United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax 
Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 460, and n. 10 (1978) (“The history 
of 
of 
Confederation  suggests  the  same  distinction  between
‘treaties,  alliances,  and  confederations’  on  the  one  hand, 
and  ‘agreements  and  compacts’  on  the  other,”  as  the 
distinction made in the Constitution’s Treaty and Compact
Clauses).

interstate  agreements  under 

the  Articles 

Similarly,  other  pre-ratification  national  or  state  laws 
and  practices  may  sometimes  help  an  interpreter  discern
the meaning of particular constitutional provisions.  Those 
pre-ratification American laws and practices formed part of
the  foundation  on  which  the  Framers  constructed  the 
Constitution  and  Bill  of  Rights.    Indeed,  the  Constitution 
did  not  displace  but 
largely  co-exists  with  state 
constitutions  and  state  laws,  except  to  the  extent  they
conflict with federal law.  See Art. VI. 

On the other hand, some pre-ratification history can be
probative  of  what  the  Constitution  does  not  mean.  The 
Framers  drafted  and  approved  many  provisions  of  the
Constitution precisely to depart from rather than adhere to
certain pre-ratification laws, practices, or understandings.

For example, the “defects” of the Articles of Confederation 
inspired some of the key decisions made by the Framers in
Philadelphia and by the First Congress in drafting the Bill 
of Rights.  The Federalist No. 37, at 224 (J. Madison); see, 
e.g., id., at 226 (“the existing Confederation is founded on 
principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently 
change this first foundation, and with it the superstructure
resting upon it”); PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 
U. S.  482,  508  (2021)  (“When  the  Framers  met  in 
Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they sought to create