Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 33

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

that in Heller we reiterated that evidence of “how the Sec-
ond Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its 
ratification  through  the  end  of  the  19th  century”  repre-
sented a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation.”  554 
U. S., at 605.  We therefore examined “a variety of legal and 
other sources to determine the public understanding of [the
Second Amendment] after its . . . ratification.”  Ibid.  And, 
in other contexts, we have explained that “ ‘a regular course
of practice’ can ‘liquidate & settle the meaning of ’ disputed
or  indeterminate  ‘terms  &  phrases’ ”  in  the  Constitution. 
Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., 
at 13) (quoting Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2,
1819),  in  8  Writings  of  James  Madison  450  (G.  Hunt  ed. 
1908)); see also, e.g., Houston Community College System v. 
Wilson, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 5) (same); The 
Federalist No. 37, p. 229 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison); 
see  generally  C.  Nelson,  Stare  Decisis  and  Demonstrably 
Erroneous  Precedents,  87  Va.  L. Rev.  1,  10–21  (2001);  W. 
Baude,  Constitutional  Liquidation,  71  Stan.  L. Rev.  1 
(2019).  In other words, we recognize that “where a govern-
mental  practice  has  been  open,  widespread,  and  unchal-
lenged  since  the  early  days  of  the  Republic,  the  practice
should guide our interpretation of an ambiguous constitu-
tional  provision.”  NLRB  v.  Noel  Canning,  573  U. S.  513, 
572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment); see also My-
ers  v.  United  States,  272  U. S.  52,  174  (1926);  Printz  v. 
United States, 521 U. S. 898, 905 (1997). 

But to the extent later history contradicts what the text
says, the text controls.  “ ‘[L]iquidating’ indeterminacies in
written  laws  is  far  removed  from  expanding  or  altering
them.”  Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  13);  see  also  Letter 
from  J.  Madison  to  N.  Trist  (Dec.  1831),  in  9  Writings  of 
James  Madison  477  (G.  Hunt  ed.  1910).    Thus,  “post-
ratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are incon-
sistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text