Gordon S. Wood, a preeminent historian of early American history, died last week at age 92 after being struck by a vehicle in Rhode Island. Renowned for his scholarly work on the founding era, Wood’s influence extended beyond academia to the highest levels of the U.S. judiciary, where his historical analyses have been cited in numerous Supreme Court decisions over the past several decades.

Wood’s most frequently referenced work is his 1969 book, *The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787*, which offers a detailed examination of the political thought and constitutional debates during the nation’s founding. Although widely acclaimed in historical circles and recipient of the Bancroft Prize, it was nearly two decades after publication before the Supreme Court first cited it in a 1989 ruling against racial preferences in municipal contracting. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing a concurrence in that case, drew on Wood’s insights into the founders’ skepticism about small republics, arguing that smaller political units were especially prone to factional oppression, thereby heightening the risks of local racial discrimination.

Throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century, Wood’s scholarship appeared in at least 24 Supreme Court opinions spanning topics such as federalism, separation of powers, presidential appointments, congressional term limits, and election law disputes. Justices across the ideological spectrum, including Anthony Kennedy, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., have referenced Wood’s work. These citations often reflect Wood’s exploration of how the founders sought to constrain potential excesses of both executive power and state legislatures following independence.

In the landmark 2023 case *Moore v. Harper*, Roberts relied on Wood’s account of the post-Revolutionary period to affirm the authority of state courts to check legislative actions concerning election rules. The decision underscored a core theme in Wood’s writing: the Constitution as a safeguard against tyranny from any branch or level of government. This view resonated amid contemporary debates over partisan gerrymandering and the limits of legislative authority over elections.

Wood’s growing prevalence in Supreme Court opinions coincided with the rise of originalism—a legal philosophy championed by Scalia and others that emphasizes interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning. Although Wood himself did not fully endorse originalism, cautioning that constitutional meaning evolves over time, his research provided a valuable historical foundation for justices seeking to understand the founders’ intentions and political context.

Known for his measured, nonpartisan approach, Wood once described history as a source of consolation amid political turmoil, helping to place current events within a broader, enduring narrative. His legacy, paradoxically, is that of a moderate scholar whose deep study of the early republic has become a significant reference point in some of the Supreme Court’s most consequential constitutional rulings.