Donald B. Tobin (Maryland) & Alex Tobin (Lippman & Ouellette, New Haven), Living Constitutionalism, Originalism, and the Sixteenth Amendment, 77 Ala. L. Rev. 511 (2026):

The Supreme Court’s embrace of living constitutionalism in tax jurisprudence may allow it to avoid building the tax base on constitutional quicksand. In Moore v. United States, the Court eschewed creating a structural calamity in tax jurisprudence and applied a pragmatic type of living constitutionalism. While the Court originally granted certiorari in Moore to address the question whether “the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states,” in the opinion that followed, the majority explicitly declined to answer this question, finding instead that there was realization in this case. This technical tax case could have dramatically altered the tax code, but instead uplifted living constitutionalism as a method for interpreting the Constitution. Whether the Court will expand on its use of living constitutionalism—let alone recognize Moore as containing living constitutionalist rationale—remains to be seen, but Moore provides a productive pathway forward for constitutional interpretation. …

Part I of this article explains the tax issues at play in Moore and why a technical international tax provision almost led to a radical change in the tax law. Part II reviews the various forms of living constitutionalism and originalism to provide the interpretive tools necessary to understand Moore. Part III examines the majority opinion and explains why the majority approach contains important elements of living constitutionalism. Part IV examines the flaws of the originalist approach and explains why the Court should apply a type of pragmatic living constitutionalism when analyzing the constitutionality of tax
provisions.

Editor’s Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to tax posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.