Congressional Silence and the Statutory Interpretation Game

By Stancil, Paul | William and Mary Law Review, March 2013 | Go to article overview

Congressional Silence and the Statutory Interpretation Game


Stancil, Paul, William and Mary Law Review


TABLE OF CONTENTS  INTRODUCTION  I. A UNIDIMENSIONAL MODEL OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION    A. Introduction    B. The Single-Dimension Model       1 The Set-Up         a. No Transaction Costs         b. With Transaction Costs         c. The Shape of the Override       2. Federalizing the Problem         a. The Players         b. A World Without Transaction Costs         c. A World with Transaction Costs            i. An Untenable Interpretation            ii. A Safe Interpretation            iii. An Indeterminate Interpretation?            iv. The Problem of Political Promise Keeping         d. On the Importance of Backward Induction  II. EXPANDING THE MODEL TO TWO DIMENSIONS     A. Introduction by Way of a Charter School's Backstory     B. Transaction Costs in Two Dimensions        1. The Circular Inaction Zone        2. Measuring Costs and Benefits in a Two-Dimensional World     C. A Special Feature of Two Dimensions        1. Introduction        2. Three Differently Identical Interpretations           a. An Unworkable Interpretation           b. A Safe Interpretation           c. An Indeterminate Interpretation?              i. On Bargaining Power Alone              ii. The Problem of Political Promise Keeping Revisited  III. AMPLIFICATIOINS AND APPLICATIONS    A. Categorizing Response Costs       1. Process Costs       2. Search and Specificity Costs       3. Opportunity Costs    B. The Influence of Interest Groups    C. Applying the Model to Three Real-World Contexts       1. Federal Civil Pleading Standards After Ashcroft v. Iqbal          a. Case Background          b. Applying the Model       2. Bailing Out of the Voting Rights Act After NAMUDNO v. Holder          a. Case Background          b. Applying the Model       3. A Low-Cost Counterexample: The Lilly Ledbetter Override          a. Case Background          b. Applying the Model CONCLUSION: AMBITION, MODESTY, AND AMBITION 

"Congress has not amended the statute to reject our construction, nor have any such amendments even been proposed, and we therefore may assume that our interpretation was correct." (1)

"[Transactions] are often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost." (2)

INTRODUCTION

In January 2009, the Democratic Party controlled both chambers of Congress decisively; it also held the White House. (3) And at least twice during that two-year period, a conservative Supreme Court issued statutory interpretation opinions deeply unpopular with rank-and-file congressional Democrats and the President. In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder (NAMUDNO), the Court ruled that a Texas municipal utility district could "bail out" of the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act despite the state's history of discrimination against minority voters. (4) In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court expanded and cemented the holding of a revolutionary 2007 case, (5) finding that the "short and plain statement" pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires all civil plaintiffs to demonstrate that their factual contentions are "plausible" in order to survive a motion to dismiss. (6)

Both NAMUDNO and Iqbal represent conservative interpretations very likely at odds with the preferences of the 111th Congress; both opinions are also arguably deeply inconsistent with congressional preferences at the times the relevant statutory provisions were enacted or reauthorized. (7) Moreover, NAMUDNO and Iqbal were both publicly salient cases; the New York Times published editorials on both decisions, and members of Congress were obviously aware of the opinions. (8) But by the time the Democrat-dominated 111th Congress gave way to the politically divided 112th Congress in January 2011, the only political response to these decisions was silence.

This silence raises a larger question: when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, to what extent does subsequent congressional inaction really represent political agreement with, or acquiescence to, that interpretation? …

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

Congressional Silence and the Statutory Interpretation Game
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.