Originalism's Unbalanced Ledger

This Essay examines the fundamental tension between originalism and cost-benefit analysis—the two dominant methodologies shaping modern, public law decision-making. Originalism, currently triumphant, prioritizes historical meaning and textual fidelity. It operates in stark contrast to cost-benefit analysis, the byword of the administrative state since 1982, which focuses on the future and efficiency. Descriptively, the two methodologies are irreconcilable.

Nor is it possible to pair them by claiming they serve different purposes; originalism and cost-benefit analysis conflict when assessing agency design, constitutional rights, and judicial review of administrative action. As regulatory policymaking continues to rely on empirical and economic assessments, originalism's influence in public law will face increasing pressure to adapt or retreat.