Applying theories and decisions from foreign courts in U.S. law has long been a popular fad among liberal jurists and academics in America, especially by proponents of the “living Constitution.” Left-leaning majorities on the Supreme Court have cited foreign court decisions and legal practices in several cases over the past 10 years to overturn centuries of precedent on a multitude of controversial issues such as whether minors convicted of serious crimes should be subject to either the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole.

In each case, concepts like the allegedly “evolving standards of decency,” particularly in Europe, were cited among the reasons for reinterpreting the Constitution to prohibit what had previously been permitted. Conservatives on the court, particularly justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, have opposed this trend, insisting that the use of foreign law to overturn the democratic process in the U.S. is intrinsically unconstitutional.