A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

It is widely believed that the Supreme Court adjudicates Second Amendment claims using a “history and tradition” test. The label (sometimes referred to as “text, history, and tradition”) has the potential to mislead, with bad consequences for Second Amendment litigation and beyond. This month’s column explains why I believe the label is inapt, and why “text and history” is a better label for the court’s approach to the Second Amendment – and constitutional interpretation more broadly.

Updated on Dec. 10 at 10:37 a.m.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered a challenge to a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. During over two hours of oral argument in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, some of the justices were sympathetic to the challengers’ position that the coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. But with Justice Neil Gorsuch remaining silent throughout the debate, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett asking only one question, it remained difficult to make definitive predictions about the outcome of the case.

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

In a recent interview, Justice Amy Coney Barrett shared her view that “originalism became prominent as a theory” as a counterweight to the theory of “living constitutionalism” that “had become dominant” during the courts led by Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger. According to Barrett, whereas the living constitutionalism of the Warren-Burger eras put the court in the position of functionally amending the Constitution by updating its meaning, originalism instead aims to understand “how those who ratified the Constitution understood the words.”

Updated on Dec. 8 at 5:05 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning signaled that it was likely to strike down a federal law that restricts the president’s ability to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission. During two and a half hours of argument in the case of Trump v. Slaughter, a solid majority of the justices appeared to agree with the Trump administration that a law prohibiting the president from firing FTC commissioners except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. And although several justices expressed skepticism about a 90-year-old case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upholding that law, it was less clear that there was a majority ready to overrule it.

A decision in favor of the Trump administration would significantly increase the president’s power over not only the FTC but roughly two dozen other multi-member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. President Donald Trump has also fired members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Supreme Court has already allowed those firings to take effect in proceedings on its interim docket, but the court’s ruling in the case of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter will provide a more definitive ruling on the legality of those firings.

Oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, on the president’s authority to fire the heads of independent, multi-member federal agencies, have concluded, but the conversation isn’t over. Listen now to a special live broadcast of the Advisory Opinions podcast to reflect on what the justices said and what could happen next.

Advisory Opinions host Sarah Isgur is joined by SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe, David French, and Adam White.