Strict constructionism refers to a particular way of interpreting the Constitution and laws of the United States. When used in legal setting, it means that a judge should interpret the text as written, and not draw any inferences from it. Sometimes confused with "originalism," strict constructionism concentrates more on the text and less on the times in which it was written. Its converse, the broad interpretation of the Constitution, infers congressional powers or individual rights that aren’t specifically acknowledged therein. Sometimes called judicial activism, this is decried by opponents as an attempt by activist courts to create legislation from the bench, usurping the legislature.

An example of strict constructionism is the case of Minnesota v Carter (1998). At issue was whether a short-term guest in someone’s home, like a drug dealer making a sale, enjoyed the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, siding with the majority in the case, pointed to the text of the Fourth Amendment that he said shows that while it applies to people in their own houses, it doesn’t protect their short-term guests. Other famous cases of strict constructionism are the Dred Scott case of 1857, which famously asserted that a slave was a slave even if accompanying his owner in free states, and even freed slaves could never become citizens, and the 1896 case of Plessy v Ferguson, which upheld the “separate but equal” justification for racial segregation.

Two of the most famous Supreme Court cases of the 20th century, Brown v Board of Education (1954) and Roe v Wade (1973), rested on a broad interpretation of the Constitution rather than strict constructionism. Brown found that racial segregation in public schools violated the Constitution despite the existence of “equal” facilities. Roe upheld women’s right to abortions by virtue of a right to privacy hitherto unacknowledged in the Constitution.

Both of these cases resulted in outcomes associated with liberal political ideology, so that in the larger setting of political discourse, broad constructionism and judicial activism both have become associated with political liberalism, and strict constructionism with political conservatism and judicial restraint. These associations are not necessarily accurate, though, because both judicial activism and broad constructionism can be associated with Supreme Court decisions, like the Citizens United case of 2010, favored by political conservatives.