The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond

By Schacter, Jane S. | Stanford Law Review, November 1998 | Go to article overview

The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond


Schacter, Jane S., Stanford Law Review


Recent scholarship on the Supreme Court's statutory interpretation practices has focused on originalist vs. nonoriginalist approaches to legislative language, with special attention to the rise of "textualism" as a leading form of originalist interpretation. One important aspect of the perceived textualist ascendance is a decline in the Court's use of legislative history, an interpretive resource grounded in the more traditional "intentionalist" approach to statute. In her empirical study of the interpretive resources applied by the Court in its October 1996 Term decisions addressing statutory questions, Professor Jane Schacter detects judicial trends that run counter to the academic literature. Professor Schacter's study demonstrates that, contrary to recent empirical analyses finding minimal usage of legislative history by the Justices, the Court invoked legislative history in nearly 50% of the statutory interpretation cases decided in 1996. Based on an analysis of other sources used by the Court, Professor Schacter argues that the Court's recent statutory jurisprudence confounds the conventional interpretive divides that structure much of the contemporary scholarship, reflecting instead what she calls "common law originalism." This approach is evidenced by the Court's extensive use of not only statutory language, but precedent, judicially-selected policy norms, other statutes (including state statutes), canons of construction, and secondary sources, among other interpretive resources. Professor Schacter argues that recognizing the common law originalism reflected in the Court's decisions exposes weaknesses in both recent textualist critiques of legislative history and in the conventional understanding of controversies about statutory interpretation.

INTRODUCTION

It is common, even mundane, to observe that the Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation has become increasingly "textualist" in character--that is, more oriented to statutory language and the assertedly "objective" meaning of statutory text than to the collective subjective intent behind the legislation.(1) A principal piece of evidence marshaled in support of this characterization is a decline in the Court's use of legislative history in construing federal laws.(2) Because committee reports, floor statements, and other materials generated during the legislative process traditionally appear in statutory interpretation opinions as evidence of the controlling legislative intent, the Court's declining use of these materials in construing ambiguous statutory provisions has generally been taken to signal a move away from "intentionalism" and toward the "new textualism" associated most prominently with Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, legislative history's most conspicuous critic,(3) vigorously challenges the legitimacy of legislative history as an "authoritative indication" of statutory meaning.(4) Because Scalia and others claim that the judicial search for legislative intent in general, and the use of legislative history as evidence of that intent in particular, is inconsistent with the constitutionally prescribed roles of both the courts and Congress,(5) the legislative history question has spilled over the confines of statutory interpretation into a larger debate about institutional characteristics and roles.(6)

The embattled character of legislative history in the Supreme Court has been widely viewed as a proxy for the rise of the "new textualism," and has therefore commanded extended scholarly attention.(7) Most of this commentary has been normative in nature, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the major critiques of legislative history.(8) A smaller body of work has ventured into empirical terrain and has charted the declining use of legislative history in the Supreme Court by examining the Court's statutory cases and noting the trend away from citing committee reports, floor debates, and other sources reflecting the statutory background. …

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

The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond
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.