As the Supreme Court opens its 2014-15 term, my projection is: this is not going to be a big year for originalism. Unlike last year, which featured major cases like Noel Canning and Bond, I think there is significantly less on the docket of originalist interest.
Two cases have some potential: Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Jerusalem passport case, and Arizona State Legislature, the meaning-of-legislature case. (Both have been discussed previously on this blog.) Here are the questions presented:
Whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the President's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him."
With little precedent on point, this one is likely to get into questions of the original meaning of executive power and early historical practices. I will have more to say in due course.
(1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution [Art. I, Sec. 4] and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.
Again, there's not much precedent directly on point, so the debate is likely to involve questions about what the framers meant by "Legislatures" of the States.
On a quick review, I don't see other cases likely to produce significant originalist discussion.
RELATED CORRECTION: Garrett Epps writes that my prior post on the Arizona Legislature case misread his post; he did not intend to indicate support for the lower court (which read "Legislature" to include an independent commission not controlled by the legislature). To the contrary, he says, he thinks it's a close case. Apologies.