There is a riddle of two doors, one leading to freedom and one to prison. There is one guard at each door. One guard always tells the truth, and the second guard always lies. You get to ask one question to either guard. What one question could you ask that, regardless of whether you ask the truthteller or liar, would determine which door leads to freedom?

After you figure that out, then you are well-prepared to read the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision holding that a claim for wrongful institution of civil proceedings can be based on a bar complaint. Or skip it and just realize that there is yet another reason for attorneys not to report bad conduct to the State Bar. There is more enjoyment in reading Justice Montgomery’s dissent:

The majority’s analysis demonstrates that textualism unmoored from original public meaning can produce results that conflict with a provision’s original meaning. And that is not how this Court interprets the law. Whenever the meaning of a provision is in question, it is critical to confirm the meaning at the time the provision was adopted.

And even more enjoyment comes from reading the article he cites: Lawrence Solum, Surprising Originalism: The Regula Lecture, 9 ConLawNOW 235 (2018). It’s free online.

link to opinion

link to Surprising Originalism