Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 41

6 

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

history,  post-ratification  history,  and  precedent  when 
analyzing vague constitutional text. 

A 

Pre-ratification  history.  When 

interpreting  vague
constitutional  text,  the  Court  typically  scrutinizes  the
stated intentions and understandings of the Framers and 
Ratifiers  of  the  Constitution 
(or,  as  relevant,  the 
Amendments).  The Court also looks to the understandings 
of the American people from the pertinent ratification era.
Those  intentions  and  understandings  do  not  necessarily 
determine  meaning,  but  they  may  be  strong  evidence  of 
meaning.  See  generally,  e.g.,  The  Federalist  (C.  Rossiter
ed.  1961);  Records  of  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787  (M.
Farrand ed. 1911); Debates on the Federal Constitution (J. 
Elliot ed. 1836). 

Especially  for  the  original  Constitution  and  the  Bill  of 
Rights, the Court also examines the pre-ratification history
in  the  American  Colonies,  including  pre-ratification  laws
and practices.  And the Court pays particular attention to 
the historical laws and practices in the United States from
Independence  in  1776  until  ratification  in  1788  or  1791.
Pre-ratification  American  history  can  shed  light  on 
constitutional meaning in various ways.

For  example,  some  provisions  of  the  Constitution  use 
language that appeared in the Articles of Confederation or
state  constitutional  provisions.  And  when  the  language
that  appeared  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  or  in  state 
constitutions is the same as or similar to the language in
the U. S. Constitution, the history of how people understood 
the  language  in  the  Articles  or  state  constitutions  can 
inform  interpretation  of  that  language  in  the  U. S. 
Constitution.  See,  e.g.,  Moore  v.  Harper,  600  U. S.  1,  33 
(2023) (the “Framers did not write the Elections Clause on
a blank slate—they instead borrowed from the Articles of
Confederation”  as  evidenced  by  their  use  of  “closely