In a new article, Professor Bill Watson and co-author Nina Varsava examine the ways in which originalists have shown a tendency to espouse a general-law theory of constitutional rights. This change in the direction of originalist arguments, they write in Northwestern University Law Review, makes judicial decisions more dependent on moral reasoning, which more closely aligns with non-originalist approaches. “This general-law turn pulls originalists back to the question they started with,” the paper concludes. “Namely, how should judges adjudicate constitutional disputes?”