Statutory Interpretation
Professor Fenster
Fall 2016
1. Introduction
Bond v. US (US Supreme Court – 2014)
Bond was charged with mail fraud and possession and using a chemical weapon in violation of Federal Statute §229 after poisoning her husband’s lover with a chemical that caused a chemical burn. The statute is meant to go after “bad guys” that use chemical weapons to harm enemies during war.
Issue – Does the statute apply to the facts? If so, does Congress have the authority under the Constitution to pass a statute that touches local crimes because of the treaty?
Roberts (majority) – should read the statute in the context of the convention, and in doing so Bond’s actions are not covered by the statute. The statute should be narrowly read along with principles of federalism. The Court insist on a clear indication that Congress meant to reach purely local crimes before taking the interpretation of the broad definition in the statute that would intrude on state police powers.
Scalia (dissent) – Based on the language of the statute, Bond’s actions were clearly covered by the statute and the exception to the statute does not apply to her since she was not using the chemicals for “peaceful purposes.” However, it is unconstitutional because it infringes on powers reserved for the states in the Constitution.
Canon of interpretation used – when judges are interpreting statutes they avoid reaching difficult constitutional questions unless the legislature invites them to by clear, expressed language that the statute should reach broadly.
2. Legislative Process and Judicial Deference
A. Legislative Process
In determining the meaning of a statute, some courts consider statements that were made during the legislative process by committees or members of the legislature that enacted the statute. These statements provide context for interpreting the words that were actually chosen. (Legislative process provides context.)
B. Bicameralism
Bill introduced by a member
Committee assignment
Voted out of Committee – Committee writes a report to go w/ bill that gives collective understanding. Also, statements made by committee members can give important meaning in determiningstatutory meaning. The bill receives the highest scrutiny during the legislative process of the committee.
Floor vote – the impact discussion + other amendments by non-committee members. Courts generally do not give much weight to statements made by individual legislators during floor debate.
Senate tends to be more moderate than the House because Senators represent the whole state. Legislative districts in the House tend to make members lean more left or right.
Conference Committee allows for members of both houses to negotiate for one bill that will go to POTUS for signature.
C. Recurring Themes in the Legislative Process
The text: begin your analysis to interpret a statute
Is the legal effect clear from the language?
Is the intent clear from the language (and should it matter)?
If not, look at the legislative intent.
The “legislative history”: set of circumstances to consider when the text is ambiguous.
Is the intent clear from the history?
Things to Note:
Most bills die; few bills live
Institutional obstructions to enactment: multiple veto points, difficult coordination.
A highly majoritarian process, with obstructions that might induce compromise.
E. Judicial Deference to Internal Legislative Process
How much should a court weigh into legislative ambiguity once a bill has been passed and enacted?
If it’s a political question, then there is no role for the judiciary.
Judges avoid ruling on a legislature’s internal rules or whether the legislature has complied with those rules.
Policy reasons: separation of powers; co-ordinate and co-equal branches of government.
Legislative bodies have the power to create their own procedural rules
Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. v. Dwyer (Iowa Supreme Court 1996) – What extent the courts will way into rules created by the legislature
Legislature had passed open records law affecting themselves. DM sought phone call records. Legislative committee adopted rule preventing release of records. DM sued.
Majority – it falls under the power of the Senate to determine its rules and when those rules are violated. Senate passes the rule not simply because they didn’t want to disclose records but disclosing the records would be harmful to public and Senate’s ability to carry out responsibilities. It is a rule of proceeding and therefore a political question. The electoral process should fix it.
Holding – The issue is a political question since it involves a rule of procedure which is within the power of the legislature.
Dissent – It’s dealing with a statute and it’s up to the courts to interpret a statute once enacted.
The Single Subject Rule – each bill must address only 1 subject.
Single subject rules constitutionally require that a bill addresses only “one subject.” It allows everyone to have adequate notice and alerts the reader to matters contained in its body to protect against surprise legislation.
What violates the single subject rule? Whether an act violates the multiple subject matter rule depends on whether all of the bill’s provisions seek to accomplish a single objective. The Constitution looks to “unity of purpose.” All the Constitution requires is that the act embrace only on general subject.
Lutz v. Foran (Georgia Supreme Court 1993)
π argues the law must be struck down because it applied to more than one profession
Majority – caption gives adequate notice to all and seeks to reduce the number of liability claims against professionals. The plain language says “professionals.” The Court construed the provision broadly to reasonably reach all professional liability. The Court was not persuaded that a reasonable man would understand it to apply only to medical malpractice despite rest of bill being medical.
Holding – does not violate the Constitutional prohibition against the inclusion of more than on subject matter in a bill or matter in the body different than the title because it gives adequate notice by using plain language.
Dissent – focus on purpose of single subject rule which is to give notice to citizens. Believes the title doesn’t give adequate notice that it will apply to more than medical professionals. Argues it is a change to the status quo and deserves more scrutiny from judiciary.
You can through a single subject rule into an argument against a statute but normally doesn’t win because you’re saying that the legislature did a bad job.
3. Overview of Interpretation
A. Sources and Approaches
The commanding question in legi
ded to do something or not, there are gaps in the statute for a reason and we should not look to fill those gaps with legislative history.
C. Approaches to Statutory Interpretation
Fundamentally, the approaches differ in whether, when, and to what extent adherents will consider sources other than the statutory text to interpret a statutory text.
Broadly speaking, there are three dominant approaches to statutory interpretation:
– focuses on the text itself and holding the legislature to its words to result in enacting well drafted statutes. The legislature enacts laws and should be held to those words; they do not enact legislative history. Makes judges role more narrow. Use different dictionaries to form your argument for your client. Argument this is least deferential to the legislature because it can choose any plain meaning of the statute, even if unintended by the legislature.
1) judges are agents of the constitution; not the legislature
2) looking beyond the text raises constitutional issues (SOP)
3) intent or purpose of a group is difficult or impossible to determine
– sources that look at the broader available sources to understand what the text actually means. Language is not perfectly clear so judges must look at sources to determine what it means. The roll of the court is to further the intent of the legislature. Intent of the legislature is more about the specific intent. Argument that this approach is least deferential because it will give less weight to the text of law and can find an intention not really there.
Need not find ambiguity or absurdity in statute in order to use extrinsic sources (use of all sources; primarily leg. history)
Can the Court discern intent?
Can you even discern the intent of group?
Not all legislative history affirmed by legislature
Too much power given to statements
Most of legislative reports are drafted by staff
Legislative history is liable to manipulation
Legislative history not approved by other branches
– More broadly view the policy reasons in what the legislature was trying to do. Purposivist view themselves as agents of the legislature (contrary to textualsit who view themselves as agents of the constitution). Focus on the board goal of the statute. Argument this is least deferential because it will interpret to advance purpose even if legislature did not intent that statue to cover the situation.
What problem was the legislature intending to resolve?
Need not a reason (ambiguity or absurdity to go beyond the text.
Can purpose be found at all? Or does it merely reflect judicial ideologies?
Why would purpose be in the legislative history?
Is a court competent to find purpose?
