Context-Sensitive Deference to Presidential Signing Statements

Harvard Law Review, December 2006 | Go to article overview

Context-Sensitive Deference to Presidential Signing Statements


Presidential signing statements have made headlines over the past year, beginning when a 1986 statement penned by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was published and scrutinized during the 2006 Senate hearings on his nomination to the Supreme Court. (1) At the end of June 2006, the much awaited Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2) ignored a Bush Administration signing statement asserting that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the case. The conflict escalated in late July 2006, when the American Bar Association (ABA) released a report declaring that some of President George W. Bush's signing statements threaten the rule of law and urging Congress to act to curb such abuses. (3) Senator Arlen Specter responded by introducing a bill, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that would prohibit any state or federal court from relying on a presidential signing statement "as a source of authority" (4) and would grant Congress standing to seek declaratory judgments on the legality of specific signing statements. (5) A similar bill is pending before the Committee on Government Reform in the House of Representatives. (6)

The arguments in favor of judicial reliance on signing statements in statutory interpretation have not changed greatly since now-Justice Alito wrote his memorandum twenty years ago. The original and primary justification offered by proponents for their use is that these statements are part of "legislative" history because a bill must be signed by the President before it can become law. (7) By this logic, "the President's understanding of [a] bill should be just as important as that of Congress." (8) This justification has been the subject of ongoing scholarly debate, with each administration drawing fire from politically opposed commentators for its use of signing statements. (9) The second justification for the use of signing statements in statutory interpretation was portended by Alito: "Is [a signing statement] entitled to the deference comparable to that customarily given to administrative interpretations?" (10) This question of deference to signing statements has increased in relevance with the rise of the administrative state over the past two decades and with the increasing importance of the Chevron (11) doctrine in modern statutory interpretation. (12)

This Note takes a step back from both the endorsement of signing statements offered in Alito's memorandum and the ABA's condemnation of such statements. This Note argues instead that presidential signing statements should be examined as simply another species of statutory interpretation. Courts should adopt a flexible approach to the amount of deference accorded signing statements by applying doctrinal tools developed in the areas of statutory interpretation and administrative law and by extending such deference only to the extent that these statements promote deliberation, transparency, and comparative institutional competency.

Specifically, this Note argues that the two most common rationales for judicial reliance on statutory interpretation in signing statements are incorrect: a signing statement offering the President's interpretation of a statute should not be considered part of the legislative history of that statute, and it should not receive Chevron deference as though it were an administrative interpretation. Part I discusses the history of presidential signing statements, including their uses, justifications, and consideration by the judiciary. Part II challenges the assertion that a signing statement is part of a bill's legislative history, arguing that because a signing statement is issued after the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and debate about the statute's meaning has passed, it is instead comparable to post-enactment legislative history and should receive little deference from the judiciary. Part III analogizes signing statements to agency enforcement guidelines and policy statements, which were specifically prohibited from receiving Chevron deference in United States v. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Context-Sensitive Deference to Presidential Signing Statements
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.