Document Type

Article

Publication Title

University of Pennsylvania Law Review

Abstract

The use of penumbral reasoning in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut has received considerable criticism from so-called conservative constitutional commentators, most notably Robert Bork. This essay demonstrates that penumbral reasoning is also widely used by courts in service of results generally regarded as conservative, with much less controversy. Penumbral reasoning, it suggests, is an essential implement in the judicial toolbox, and worthy of more respect, and use, from courts that care about fidelity to constitutional text and structure.

First Page

1333

Last Page

1348

Publication Date

4-1992

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS