Statutory Interpretation Outline

The Legislative Process..................................................................................................................1 How a Bill Becomes Law...........................................................................................................1 Enrolled Bill Doctrine.................................................................................................................1 Amendments...............................................................................................................................1 Interpretive Aids.........................................................................................................................2Theories of the Legislative Process...............................................................................................2 Systems of Representation..........................................................................................................2 Theories of Representation.........................................................................................................3 Theories of the Legislative Process............................................................................................4Approaches to Statutory Interpretation......................................................................................7 Prescriptive Theories..................................................................................................................7 Descriptive Theories...................................................................................................................7 Textualism...................................................................................................................................8 Intentionalism.............................................................................................................................9 Dynamic Theories.......................................................................................................................9 Critical Theory..........................................................................................................................11 Statutory Directives..................................................................................................................11Textual Analysis...........................................................................................................................12 Ordinary Meaning.....................................................................................................................12 Technical Meaning....................................................................................................................12 Punctuation and Grammar Rules..............................................................................................12 Textual Canons.........................................................................................................................13 Exceptions to Plain Meaning....................................................................................................15Extrinsic Aids to Interpretation.................................................................................................16 Statutory History.......................................................................................................................16 Legislative History....................................................................................................................16 Statutory Stare Decisis..............................................................................................................17 Legislative Acquiescence..........................................................................................................18 The Role of the Common Law..................................................................................................18Substantive Canons......................................................................................................................19 Overview...................................................................................................................................19 Constitutional Avoidance..........................................................................................................19 The Rule of Lenity....................................................................................................................20 Federal Preemption of State Law..............................................................................................20 Federalism Canons....................................................................................................................22 Substantive Canons in State Courts..........................................................................................23 Conflicting Statutes...................................................................................................................23 Effective Dates & Retroactivity................................................................................................24Administrative Agencies..............................................................................................................25 Congressional Methods of Enforcement...................................................................................25 Agency Authority to Regulate..................................................................................................26 Private Rights of Action............................................................................................................27 Enforcement of Statutory Schemes...........................................................................................27 Agency Control.........................................................................................................................27 Administrative Rulemaking......................................................................................................28 Deference to Agency Interpretation..........................................................................................29

1

Statutory InterpretationProfessor Bruhl

Spring 2011

THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESSI. How a bill becomes law:

Intro House Committee House Rules Committee House Floor Senate Committee UCA or Motion to Proceed (60 votes) Senate Floor (60 votes) Conference Committee (to iron out differences in bills from both houses) House & Senate Floors Again (to vote on version worked out in Conference Committee – both houses must pass same text “enrolled bill”) (60 votes in Senate) President if President vetoes, goes back to the houses and requires a 2/3 vote in each to override his vetoA. Issues with the Legislative Process

1. Earmark – direction in a bill to spend money on a particular thing2. Logrolling – vote trading3. Rent-Seeking: getting paid to give certain groups benefits (by vote trading or

getting support from interest groups)II. Enrolled Bill Doctrine (JH p. 15)

A. Exception to the bicameralism & presentment clauses1. A bill is only supposed to become law if both houses have signed the exact

same version of the bill, which is then submitted to the presidentB. If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials,

the court treats that document as properly adopted.1. A plaintiff can't assert that a statute is void for failure to enact the exact text in

an authenticated enrolled bill just because there is some legislative history indicating that the bills actually passed by the two houses were different from the enrolled bill.

a. Sometimes they will make a tiny error so they versions are not exactly the same – they're not supposed to be able to go back in and fix it themselves, they are supposed to amend it

b. But it’s not that troubling to allow the houses to certify that they have passed the same bill just by the fact that they each signed it, because when they decide to go back and fix an error between the versions passed in each house, the whole of the house must be behind the amendment of the error

c. If anyone had snuck in something they hadn't agreed to pass, they would know it and they would be able to take action against that person)

III.Amendments:A. Introducing an amendment: sometimes if things are going well you kind of want to

keep quiet and not rock the boat. There is a chance that the amendment will be voted down

B. Rejected Amendment Rule – have to subscribe some meaning to a rejected amendment – if X was proposed and fails, it means, not X

2

IV. Interpretive AidsA. Created at vetogates; indicate deliberation in the legislative processB. Produced by the President

1. Signing Statement – additional document President signs when he signs a bill2. Two kinds:

a. Legislative history: says what the president’s understanding of the bill is and why he’s signing it

b. Constitutional signing statement: controversial – looks like a line item veto: he says he thinks the bill interferes with his constitutionally provided executive power

i. Increasingly designed to give guidance to administrative actors who will implement the laws and to influence judicial interpretation of the legislation

C. Produced by Congress1. Committee reports – provide an overview of the policy need for the statute

and the an analysis of each provision and how it relates to other parts of the provision

2. Conference reports – report of the two houses from their meeting to consolidate their two versions of a bill

3. Committee mark-ups: show how a bill was changed from its original proposed form (not very reliable; they never enacted the first one)

4. Sponsor statements – what the sponsoring legislator says about why he is proposing the bill when he submits the bill for consideration

5. Statements by supporters – not very reliable because they plant statements in order to influence interpretation of the bill later

6. Drafting and deliberation history – earlier versions of the bill not submitted , or submitted then withdrawn, or most significantly, rejected from the bill

7. Statements of non-legislative drafters: lobbyists – almost meaningless unless they have a whole lot of expertise

8. Floor debates – usually previously agreed what they will say on the floor so it doesn’t mean much

9. Subsequent legislative history – not very reliable but sometimes considered if the legislature relied on a previous interpretation in a subsequent statute, or if they relied on a certain construction of federal law when enacting a subsequent statute

THEORIES OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS I. Systems of Representation

A. Representative Government - citizens vote for representatives, who enact legislation1. Pros

a. Weeds out the proposals most responsive to temporary or partial considerations, because lawmakers would deliberate and choose better options

b. Representatives are accountable to citizens because they have to get reelected

3

c. Inhibits the tendency of popular majorities to penalize unpopular minorities

2. Consa. Means that laws will almost never be adopted or ratified by popular

vote b. Agency problem: representatives can get elected and then betray their

constituents’ interests by self-dealing, rent-seeking, or being lazyi. Rent-Seeking: attempting to obtain economic rents through

government intervention in the market3. Theories of Representative Voting

a. Trusteeship: representatives vote the way they think is best for their constituents, not necessarily the way they think the constituents would vote

b. Mirroring: vote the way the constituents would voteB. Direct Democracy - people participating in civic activities

1. Prosa. Most direct way for individuals to express their preferencesb. Republican view: popular initiatives promise to engage the citizenry in

lawmaking and stimulate public deliberation of issues2. Cons

a. Raises accountability/agency problems - sometimes representatives don’t do what the people want

b. Not cool because the minority is powerless against the majorityc. Average citizens don’t know as much as legislators might

C. Hybrid of Representative and Direct1. Most laws are enacted by a legislature2. But there is a possibility for popular initiation of laws if the legislature does

not act (voter initiative) or popular override of laws the legislature does enact (voter referendum)’

3. Prosa. Might urge lazy representatives to deal with pressing matters of public

interest in order to avoid an extreme ballot questionb. Ability of the citizenry to legislate might prevent entrenched interests

from preventing reformc. Monitor self-dealing and rent-seeking in the legislature

4. Consa. Might just increase the influence of special interests over lawmaking

because they have a lot of money and organizationb. Representatives might refuse to compromise to achieve traditional

legislation because they know they can just submit more extreme proposals to a popular vote

II. Theories of RepresentationA. Liberal Theories (Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Madison)

1. Citizens are rational actors who need government to achieve cooperative goals and to resolve differences among themselves

4

2. Legitimacy of the law rests on its procedural pedigree: its adopted by representatives elected by the citizenry

3. Citizens have an obligation to obey the law and seek any changes through established procedures

4. Representatives pursue the interests of their constituents as their collective agent

5. Legislation process: representatives reflecting different interests bargain and logroll until most of the relevant interests are satisfied

a. Logrolling: vote trading –I’ll vote for your if you vote for mine6. Lawmaking is the result of aggregating the preferences of a majority of

representatives, who mirror the preferences of a majority of their constituentsB. Republican Theories

1. View citizens as less autonomous and more profoundly affected by their communities

2. Individuals’ preferences are not fixed, they are shaped by the process of enacting legislation, and other interactions

3. Law protects citizens against violence and creates opportunities for positive human flourishing

a. Flourishing encourages citizens to actively participate in lawmaking process

4. Legitimacy of law rests on substantive guarantees as well as procedural justice5. Lawmaker’s constituency is the public good – her role is to deliberate as a

trustee for the peopleC. Critical Theories

1. Skeptical that representation amounts to anything more than a social construct2. Focus more on representation of groups than individuals or the common good3. System of representation must include members of historically subordinated

groups in sufficient numbers to influence outcomesIII.Theories of the Legislative Process

A. Proceduralist Model1. Process is full of complex hurdles that legislators have to overcome to enact

anything - vetogates2. Vetogates: checkpoints in the legislative process that can stop a bill from

becoming law a. Constitutional prohibitions are strongest: they can be changed only

through a constitutional amendmentb. Bicameralism & Presentment: law has to be adopted in the same form

by both chambers and presented to the President to sign or vetoc. Some actions require a 2/3 supermajority (e.g., overriding a

presidential veto) B. Implications

1. Makes it harder to legislate2. Statutes are costly3. Takes a lot of effort - mobilization, political capital; have to make deals to get

votes by giving goodies to other legislators (pork-barrel)4. Statutes are hard to amend

5

C. Tethonis - human lover of goddess Eos; Zeus gave him immortality but he didn’t give him eternal youth

1. Tethonis Problem: statutes get really old but never die; that’s why it’s bad that it’s really hard to amend them

D. Arguments for legislation being so difficult:1. Promotes compromise/ bipartisanship2. Gives some power to the minority party to resist the majority's promotion of

their own interests3. Makes it harder for bad legislation to be passed (but it also makes it harder for

good laws to pass)4. Keeps too much legislation from being passed to restrict limitations on

individual freedomE. Arguments against legislation being so difficult:

1. Can push the action elsewhere:a. certain things need to be done and are going to be done one way or the

otherb. if legislation won’t do it, the executive branch often will

i. Ex.: like if congress won’t legislate CO2 emissions, the EPA will aggressively interpret their regulatory power to regulate it themselves

c. Encourages activist judiciary: if the statute is obsolete but it will be impossible to amend it, the court can decide to "amend" the law by "interpreting" it

d. Recess appointments: if the president is being filibustered in his appointments, the president can use recess appointments to get his appointments done anyway

F. Interest Group Model1. Special Interest Groups are a positive way for people to participate in the

legislative process2. Can be a good way to demonstrate the intensity of feeling about a certain

measure: a law may be passed by referendum because 51% of voters3. When the legislature is clear about what it wanted, we should give it to them4. When it doesn’t, have to give it your best shot at understanding5. Tension between ruling in accordance with Congress or ruling for the weaker

partya. Take into account the likelihood that the legislature will revisit what

they’ve done with the legislationb. Always rule in favor of the weaker favor (less power in the legislative

process - rule against the stronger interest group)c. If you rule against the weaker party, they're not going to be able to go

to the legislature and get the decision changed if the court was wrongd. If you rule against the stronger party, that group can go back the

legislature and get the law changed because they have more influence6. Deliberation-forcing: forcing the legislature to go back and deliberate again to

be more clear, when the court rules against the stronger interest groupG. Two Views of Interest Groups

6

1. Optimistic/Pluralism- all the groups have access to the political processa. Since there is a spirit of competition between the groups, the groups

that reflect the public's interests are generally the ones that prevail b. The political process generally reflects the will of the publicc. Because there are so many groups, it’s really hard for just one to

dominated. If there are all these general interests, there isn't much of an incentive

to contribute because everyone kind of generally wants good public services but don’t care to lobby for them - like streets, clean air, etc. pluralism can breed apathy

2. Pessimistic/Public Choice Model - interest groups as pernicious political influences

a. Citizens organize into groups for political actionb. Take complaints to the legislative process and the political process is

the way they resolve itc. Transactional Model: Public choice views groups as legislative process

as an economic transaction, groups buy policies they like by giving support to politicians

i. When legislation spreads cost but benefits a few, we should read it narrowly

Benefits Distributed Benefits ConcentratedCosts Distributed

Majoritarian PoliticsLittle interest group activity – usually funded through tax increase or adding to national debt, so no one fights against having to pay

Client PoliticsInterest groups strongly supportIncludes a lot of logrolling and earmarksToo much benefit to one interest – like tax loopholes

Costs Concentrated

Entrepreneurial PoliticsRepresentatives will risk the punishment from the groups bearing the cost if they are convinced that the change they effect will reward them

Tough to legislate - not a lot of people to lobby because benefit is spread out and the people whom the cost is concentrated on will fight against it

Interest Group PoliticsVery specific groups will get benefits and other specific groups will bear cost

Most influential as a bill blocker than at getting legislation passed

3. Criticisms of public choice approacha. Parties are stronger and more polarized today than they used to bb. One function of the party is to protect the brandc. Legislative process tends to be parochial in terms of what gets them

reelected: keeping their voters and their special interests happy d. There is some need to please the special interests because you want

their vote

7

e. However there is still the track of one person, one vote, and they might not all like the special interest

f. Issue of media attention where everyone notices everything you dog. Attentive v. inattentive public: sometimes people don’t see or don’t

pay attention to what's going onh. Politics tends to be more majoritarian on high profile issuesi. Tend to be swayed by public and special interests in lower profile

issuesH. Implications for statutory interpretation

1. Debate through the whole course: what should your interpretive mood be?a. One is: interpret legislation broadly in accordance with its purpose -

follow spirit of the law and not the letterb. Narrow reading mood: let’s see what exactly the agreement was, and

we'll enforce that and nothing more2. Judge Easterbrook: narrow interpretation at concentrated benefits and

distributed costs: not a public regarding purpose to the legislation so there's no public good to interpreting broadly

a. Ex: grants of public land should be narrowly construed: i.e., mineral grants

3. Rule of statutory interpretation that comes out of public choice theory: Always rule against the more powerful interest group - they can go back to the legislature and get it fixed

4. Differential rate of error correction:a. Legislature errs on the tough side of interpretationb. Court errs on the lenient sidec. It’s harder for the legislature to amend statutes, but a court can always

be overturned

APPROACHES TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONI. Prescriptive Theories: tell citizens, agencies, and judges how they ought to interpret statutes

A. Prescriptive Theories Rests On Theories of State Legitimacy1. Theories of statutory interpretation are sometimes weighed based on their

ability to contribute to these theories of state legitimacya. Rule of Law Idea: statutory meaning should be neutrally applied to

everyoneb. Democratic Legitimacy Idea: interpreters ought to defer to decisions

made by the popularly elected legislators who enact statutesc. Pragmatic Idea: interpreters have an obligation to contribute

productively to the statutory scheme and ultimately to the common good

II. Descriptive Theories: tell us what citizens, agencies and courts actually do when they interpret statutes

A. Problem solving judges in the real world are guided by several different goals when they construe statutes, and consider a variety of sources for meaning

B. Different theories of interpretation lead to different results

8

III.TextualismA. Plain meaning of the text is the best evidence of legislative intent or the only

authoritative basis for interpretation1. Leading theory of interpretation, but not dominant2. Plain meaning might be the best guide for applying a statute because it is the

most obvious and maybe the most objective focal point3. Doesn’t get you very far in the difficult to decide cases, which most are, or

you wouldn’t be struggling to interpret themB. Two Kinds of Textualism

1. Some think the text is all that matters and you don’t need anything else2. Some are softer and are willing to look at other sources if it’s unclear

C. Soft Plain Meaning Rule1. Existence of an apparent plain meaning is not dispositive, because something

deeper is going on when statutes are interpreted2. Admits that the goal of the inquiry is intentionalist, and plain meaning is just

one important source of information about legislative intent or purpose3. Might be a concession to normative complexity

a. if the rule of law requires interpreters to apply statutes to the letter, sometimes the cost of "lawfulness" will be too high

4. Can't be sure the plain meaning is so plain unless you consider the legislative deliberations and the practical consequences

5. The idea that meaning depends on context may destabilize plain meaning altogether

D. New Textualism1. Goal of interpretation is to discern the text's meaning and strongly urges

rejecting sources like legislative history2. The only object of statutory interpretation is to determine the meaning of the

text and that the only legitimate sources for this inquiry are text-based or -linked sources

a. When the text is relatively clear, interpreters should not even consider other evidence of specific legislative intent or general purpose

b. Judges should almost never consult or rely on legislative historyc. But that doesn’t mean judges can't consider contextd. Willing to consider various sources to provide context:

i. Dictionaries, especially those contemporaneous with the statuteii. Other provisions of the statute and how competing

interpretations fit with themiii. How similar provisions in related or borrowed statutes have

been interpreted3. Argues that disregard of legislative materials is required by the rule in Article

I, Section 7 of the Constitutiona. A bill does not become a statute unless it has been accepted in the

same textual form by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President

9

IV. Intentionalism - Best evidence of what the legislature wanted is what they actually saidA. Goal: to discern and enforce legislative intent

1. Statutes are directives from legislatures elected by the public2. Therefore we should apply them in a manner consistent with the expectations

of their authors3. Becomes more driven by non-legislator value choices the further it gets from

specific intent 4. Evidence of actual intent itself might be subject to varying interpretations

B. Three Approaches:1. Specific: what did legislators think about the specific question or application

a. Hard to discoverb. Unknowable when interpreters face new problems not considered by

drafters2. Imaginative Reconstruction: hypothetical intent; what would they have meant

or thought?a. Benefit is that it rests on its ability to link a current interpretation to

past legislative majoritiesb. Often can't prove that one interpretation was the one actually intended

by the enacting legislature3. Purposivism/General Intent: what did they mean to fix with the law?

a. Considers the “spirit” of the lawb. Asks questions that might have gotten a bigger consensus in the

legislative deliberations than would a specific intent questionc. Can oversimplify or suppress competing purposesd. Does not reveal determinate answers when there is no neutral way to

arbitrate among different purposesC. Actual intent v. imaginative reconstruction of intent

1. Actual: looking at statements in legislative history that tell you what the intent was

2. Imaginative: what would they have wanted?D. Specific v. general intent

1. Intent on particular question before the court2. Other times more general, in terms of what the legislature was trying to

accomplish?3. Intent kind of blends into purpose as you get more general - what were they

trying to accomplish, rather than this specific issueV. Dynamic Theories

A. Application of statutes is flexible and dynamic over time1. Recognize that theories are normative because interpreters are making value

choices when they interpret statutes2. As a statute is applied over time, is not something hard but a fluid process,

influenced by men's creative impulses3. Judges are reluctant to endorse these theories without more evidence that the

theories are sufficiently constraining on interpreters or guiding to citizens

10

B. Best Answer Theories1. Statutes should be construed to produce an optimal state of affairs by

construing them in light of the purposes that they may best be made to serve, rather than the intentions the legislators had in drafting them

2. Natural Law Theoriesa. Statutory texts should be read to reflect the underlying moral reality

inherent in those words or in the evolving statutory policy3. Coherence Theories

a. Legal Process Theories: statutory text should be construed not only in light of statutory purpose, but also statutory precedents and the principles and policies followed by the polity

i. The court should be reluctant to construe a statute beyond its original purpose when such construction is strikingly inconsistent with traditions of religious liberty

b. Equilibrium: if the consensus is unshakeable in the short term, the policy is in equilibrium, and anyone who knows the political and legal lay of the land knows what the equilibrium is

i. Most citizens obey the law not be looking it up in the codes or by reading committee reports, but by simply observing the way things are done and occasionally asking an authority

C. Pragmatic Theory: 1. Intellectual framework is not single-minded, but is a web of beliefs,

interconnected but reflecting different understandings and valuesa. Human decision making tends to be polycentric, spiral, and inductive,

not linear or one dimensionalb. Can support different theories of statutory interpretationc. Look to multiple goals for statutory interpretation and consider

multiple sourcesD. Funnel - making a cable out of different tools of interpretation, rather than a chain

1. Reflects the multiplicity of considerations and the conventional hierarchy among them

2. Most concrete considerations, like text, outweigh abstract ones, like best answer

Most abstract

Most concrete & authoritative

11

current valuesevolution of statute

policy/justice

legislative purposeimaginative reconstructionspecific legislative intent

democracy

statutory textrule of

law

VI. Critical Theory:A. Deconstructive: opens up interpretive possibilities in statutory texts

1. Deconstructs the rule of law itself by revealing multiple possibilities2. If interpretation depends critically on the perspective of the interpreter even

more than on what the text says, the seemingly subordinate subject actually controls the meaning of the supposedly superior object

a. If the hierarchy is flipped and the interpretation depends on the perspective of the interpreter even more than on the text, the subordinate object actually controls the meaning of the supposedly superior object

B. Reconstructive: suggests positive moves that interpreters could take in the face of pervasive indeterminacy

1. statutory interpretation as a counterhegemonic force in our polity, insisting that unspoken voices be considered

C. Deliberation-Forcing: when it’s not clear what the legislature wanted, don’t just give it your best shot regarding what the legislature wanted, rule against what they probably wanted (against the majority party) so they have to go change it

VII. Statutory Directives: Sometimes the legislature will pass laws that give instructions to the courts on how they want the courts to interpret statutesA. Generally way too weak and ambiguous and don’t accomplish anything; don’t make

sense

TEXTUAL ANALYSISI. Ordinary Meaning

A. TCCA § 311.011, 312.002B. Plain Meaning Rule: a statute that is clear an unambiguous must be construed

according to its plain meaning1. Patrie v. Area Coop. Educ. Serv. (p. 82)

a. Assault in the context of school teachers means “violent physical attack,” because it has a common meaning for them and they would not be expected to look it up

2. Relevance of Audiencea. Whose understanding of the “ordinary meaning” is relevant?

i. Drafters of the statute?ii. Legislators who voted for the bill?

iii. Public as a whole?II. Technical Meaning: sometimes words have a legal meaning distinct from their ordinary

meaningIII.Punctuation and Grammar Rules (TCCA § 311.012, 311.016, 312.003, 312.012)

A. Serial Comma Rule: in a series of three items, if each is set off by a comma, then each item should be viewed as independent of the others

B. When a modifier is set off from a series of antecedents by a comma, the modifier should be interpreted to apply to all of the antecedents

1. People may drive cars, motorcycles, and bikes, but only on Thursday2. Says that driving those vehicles is only allowed on Thursday

12

C. Rule of Last Antecedent1. When a modifier is not set off from an antecedent by a comma, then the

modifier should be interpreted to apply only to that antecedenta. People may drive cars, motorcycles, and bikes but only on Thursdayb. Means bikes can only be driven on Thursday; cars and motorcycles

can be driven anytime2. Qualifying words, phrases, or clauses will ordinarily be construed as referring

to the words, phrases, or clauses immediately preceding, not to more remote ones, unless the context or evident meaning of the statute requires a different construction

3. The modifier’s reference is to the closest noun, absent a clear intention to the contrary

a. In Re Forfeiture of 1982 Ford Bronco (p. 132): Using truck to pick up weed for friend was “facilitation of transport of drugs”

b. State v. One 1990 Ford Pickup (p. 133): Having a little bit of cocaine in truck for personal use was not facilitation of transport of drugs

D. Conjunctive and Disjunctive: or means items are treated separately or in the alternative

E. Singular/Plural: Singular words include the plural and vice versF. Masculine and Feminine: Masculine pronouns can include the feminine and neuter,

and vice versaIV. Textual Canons: Focus of textual canons is on the legislature’s enacted expression – not on

substantive policiesA. How Different Interpretive Approaches Use Textual Canons

1. Textualists: use canons as a way to avoid finding ambiguity altogether, or to resolve it

a. Ensures that consideration of extrinsic sources will be foreclosed in all but the rarest occasions

b. Predictability: if the courts apply the canons in a predictable way and legislators know how the canons will be applied, it is more likely that legislators will draft text that can be interpreted to reflect the intended meaning

2. Intentionalist & Purposivist: if the court believes that the legislative history (or other evidence) can reliably reveal specific intent or at least the ultimate goal behind that words and phrases, then using the textual canons to resolve ambiguity might be too technical and insensitive to the true will of the legislature

a. Rely on the canons somewhat because they reflect the reality of our speaking and writing, but not as much as textualists

B. In Pari Materia: statutory language should be considered in light of the entire statute, not in isolation; similar texts or related statutes should be read harmoniously

1. Presumes internal consistency within a single statute, as well as coherence2. The closer together the sections you're comparing are, the more cohesive they

should be reada. Think of them on a continuum: arguments get weaker as you broaden

them

13

i. Same sectionii. Whole actiii. Whole lawiv. Related statutes

1. The Whole Act Rule: a statute as its enacted all needs to be read together - all enacted at the same time so words probably are meant to mean the same thing

2. Related Statutes: two legislative acts that address the same subject are considered with reference to one another, so that they may be given harmonious effect

a. The same word in related statutes should have the same meaning:C. The Rule Against Surplusage- all the words of a statute are supposed to be given

meaning; not supposed to be read so that some parts are surplusage1. Legislature put every word in the statute for a reason

a. Every word must be given meaningb. Different words in the same statute, particularly those in a lost, cannot

mean precisely the same thing (if they did, one word would be redundant)

c. Does not apply when words are clearly inadvertently inserted or where they are repugnant to the rest of the statute

D. Noscitur a Sociis: where broadly defined words are grouped with terms of specificity, the general words are interpreted as belonging to the same class as the narrowest in the list

1. The common thread tells you how to limit the definitions of each 2. Ex.: People v. Vasquez (p. 165): “Obstruct,’ followed by resist, oppose,

assault, beat or wound, did not mean lying to a police officer about your name because the other words indicated physical interference and lying is not physical

E. Ejusdem Generis: when general words in a statute precede or follow the designation of specific things, the general words should be construed to include only objects similar in nature to the specific words.

1. Specific words indicate the class of items to which the statute applies, while the general words extend the statute to everything else in the identified class

a. Distinguish: i. Noscitur tells how the list gives meaning to the items within itii. Ejusdem tells how to find items outside the list given in the

statuteF. Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: the inclusion of one thing excludes the other

1. By including a list of specific items and not using a catchall, the legislature meant to exclude items not listed

G. Provisos: clauses limiting another clause in a substantive provision1. Limit the effect of a statutory provision or create an exception to a general

rule2. Provisos state exceptions to the general policy a law embodies, and should be

strictly construed and interpreted so as not to destroy the remedial processes intended to be accomplished by the enactment

H. Role of Components of a Bill – not all language of a bill is codified in the statute

14

1. Enacting Clausea. Anything below it is law – anything above it is notb. Must precede any section that is intended to have the force of law;

only language following the enacting clause is technically enacted2. Long Titles

a. Starts with “relating to;” expresses the general purpose of the billb. Comes before the enacting clause so its not lawc. Usually tells where in the code the substantive provisions will be

codified; identifies other statutes that will be affected. Helpful when there is some ambiguity to the statute to look to the title

to see what the law was supposed to be about3. Short Titles: after the enacting clause – the Act’s popular name, i.e., The

College Fire Prevention Act, The Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind Act4. Preambles/Purpose Clauses/Legislative Findings

a. Identify the policy and considerations that led the legislature to enact the law

b. A clause with factual information about what led the legislature to compose the bill

c. May be used to clarify ambiguities, but they do not create rights that are not found in the statute, nor do they limit those actually given by the legislation

5. Purviewa. The actual provisions of the law that will be divided up into sections

(with headings or section titles)b. There is often a definitions section, rules, exceptions, defenses,

enforcement, consequences, effective dateV. Exceptions to Plain Meaning: If the plain meaning of the text is ambiguous, absurd, or has a

scrivener’s error, the court will go beyond the textA. Absurdity (The Golden Rule Exception): when the plain meaning leads to an absurd

result, the court must go beyond the plain meaning to see if other sources demonstrate that the absurd (but plain) meaning was not intended

1. Interpretations of a statute which would produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available

B. Ambiguity: this entire course is about ambiguous statutes.C. Scrivener’s Error: when statutes contain an obvious clerical or typographical error,

judges will correct the error1. generally courts can deviate from the plain meaning rule in order to correct

the error so they can interpret the statute as the legislature intended, rather than the way the statute is written

2. courts shouldn’t use it just because they believe an error might have been made

15

EXTRINSIC AIDS TO INTERPRETATIONI. Statutory History: looking at how the statute got to be the way it is: evolution of a statute

(kind of between textual and legislative history)A. "Dog didn’t bark rule" or the "silver blaze" canon

1. The dog didn’t bark because it was someone he knew2. Congress is the dog: not barking is Congress not saying they're changing the

cap3. Changing it would be Congress saying hey we're changing this4. They didn’t bark because they thought they were keeping the law the same5. If it looks like Congress has inadvertently made a major change to a settled

law, better look at the legislative history to see if there was barking when they passed it

II. Legislative HistoryA. Record of deliberations surrounding (and usually prior to) the law’s enactmentB. Main Sources: created at three vetogates:

1. Hearings and reports - generated by committees2. Sponsor statements and legislator colloquies - from floor debate3. Conference reports - from two chambers settling on one version of the bill

C. Other Sources: sometimes include:1. Drafting documents - prepared before a bill was introduced in the legislature2. Presidential veto or signing statements3. Subsequent legislative history – discussion of a bill after it as passed through

the legislature or even been signed into law D. Hierarchy of Sources: Most to least influential

1. Committee reports - report of the substantive subject committee (environmental committee, agricultural committee, etc.)

2. Conference committee reports - refers to the bill that was actually passed; purports to speak for everyone since its representative of both houses

3. Sponsor statements – they have to be truthful in representing the bill or their reputation will suffer

4. Colloquy on floor and in hearings5. Drafting and deliberation history6. Rejected proposals/failed amendments7. Congressional record statements/debate8. Statements of non-legislative drafters (lobbyists)9. Presidential papers and signing statements - stronger if president vetoes10. Subsequent history - law is passed and someone makes comments on the floor

about it later (i.e., there was a lawsuit and they say what they meant by the bill after)

11. Committee mark-ups of bills12. Communications between department officials and legislators13. Early drafting history/drafting documents

E. Factors of what makes some sources better than others:1. Expertise – sub-committee has a lot more expertise on their subject area than

the legislature as a whole does, for example2. How many people it speaks for

16

3. Is it believable or is it like used car salesman, saying things to get it passedF. Criteria for Using Legislative History

1. A moderate position on use says that it must be:2. Readily available to the average lawyer

a. Some sources that are usually not readily available:i. Early drafting histories, especially of bills written outside the

legislatureii. Communications between department officials and legislatorsiii. Committee mark-ups of bills

3. Relevant to the precise interpretive questiona. General intent - purpose of the statute

4. Reliable evidence of consensus within the legislaturea. Why some sources are less reliable:

i. Can't rely on the views of a legislative subgroup when the entire chamber viewed it differently

ii. Sometimes unreliable because it was created too early in the process and doesn’t reflect the bill according to the deals that were made to pass it

iii. Some is produced too late in the process iv. May reflect the views of legislative outliers - members seeking

to give the legislation a slantv. Legislators and lobbyists will try to plant remarks in reports

because they know the court considers it5. Tradeoff between reliability and usefulness

a. Committee reports and sponsor statements confirming plain meaning vs. those that take positions on issues not clearly resolved by the text

6. Can be routinely discerned by interpreters at reasonable cost

III.Statutory Stare DecisisA. Super-strong stare decisis rule applies to statutory interpretation cases

1. Absent compelling evidence that the court’s initial interpretation was wrong, courts are very reluctant to overrule it

2. Asking a court to overturn a previous statutory interpretation decision that the legislature was silent on is like asking the court not only to overrule their previous decision, but also like asking them to amend the statute, because it’s like Congress said the previous interpretation was correct

B. Legitimacy: keeping it consistent makes the decision more legitimate because it has a strong basis

1. Necessary to maintain predictability of the way the law will operate and reliance on outcomes of previous cases

C. Efficiency or decision cost reduction: the cheapest way to resolve a case is the same way as last time; possibly less litigation if the parties know how a case will come out

D. Common law stare decisis - decisions aren’t reversed just because we now think they're wrong, there has to be something else

E. Statutory stare decisis in different levels of cases

17

1. In constitutional decision making, there is less influence of stare decisis - court as a descriptive matter is more willing, and should be, to overrule previous cases. Part of it is constitutional amendments are very difficult to get, so in practice is the only way to fix a mistake in a constitutional ruling is for the court to overrule it - its not

2. So for that same reason, statutory stare decisis has a stronger influence - because it is pretty easy to amend them, and it is the legislature's job to supervise it

3. Courts shouldn’t like having to interpret statutes, ideally they would be perfectly clear and not need interpretation, but they aren’t, so they should do it as little as possible.

F. Order of influence of stare decisis:1. Most: statutory2. Middle: common law3. Lowest: Constitutional

IV. Legislative AcquiescenceA. Post-Interpretive Legislative Silence: what Congress doesn’t do can be as important

as what it does do1. If the court interprets a statute a certain way, and Congress doesn’t do

anything to indicate they disagree, we sometimes infer that congress has acquiesced to the court’s interpretation

2. Assumption that legislative silence means acquiescence encourages legislators to follow judicial interpretations and to seek legislative correction of unintended or incorrect interpretations

3. Amendments: a proposed amendment that isn't enacted, or another bill that is enacted instead: the rejected proposal is meaningful too

B. Legislative Inaction Following Judicial Interpretation1. If the court interprets a statute and congress doesn't say anything about it, does

that mean Congress agrees with the interpretation?a. Congress may not be aware of the interpretationb. Congress may not be able to agree on a way to fix the interpretation

even though they don’t agree with itc. They may have too many other things to worry about

C. Legislative Inaction Following Executive InterpretationV. The Role of the Common Law

A. A few ways statutes and common law interact1. Common law can provide meaning for undefined words in a statute2. Common law can even influence the meaning of words that are defined in the

statute3. Filling in gaps in a statute: our statutes are typically not comprehensive - it

doesn't cover every question. Can look to common law to fill in gaps un-provided for in the statute

4. Provides fodder for substantive canonsB. Common law style of thinking of different than the way statutes work

18

1. Common law is cases with particular facts, judges find results from the previous cases, and a rule is derived from the cases as a body. What is authoritative is the reason the judges found the result they did.

2. A statute on the other hand is top-down, all at once: the words themselves are the law, and they apply to every set of facts in the universe.

3. Whereas common law is created by judges, so they must at least kind of like it, statutes are created by legislature, and can create some tension between the two branches.

4. What the courts have tended to do with these statutes that are kind of invading the common law is to treat them narrowly, kind of cordon them off and give them as little effect as possible.

C. Statutes in Derogation of the Common Law (Anti-Legislative Canon)1. Kind of a judge self-serving rule2. Various meanings

a. Any statute that changes the common lawb. Statute that removes a rightc. Statute that creates a new liability - least plausible

D. Remedial Statutes1. Broadly construed

a. Any statute that changes the common law b. Creates a new remedy for injured people (and a new liability for

others)

SUBSTANTIVE CANONSI. Overview: substantive canons give guidance on how to glean the meaning of the statute, not

just the textual expressionA. See list, EFG pp. 392-97B. Textual canons are meant to be value-neutral; kind of in the statute, just putting

together the pieces of a statuteC. Not so with the substantive canons, which take a stand on valueD. Purpose & Use:

1. Preference estimation: if you can't tell what you're supposed to do, do what you usually (ham sandwich& diet sprite) - just fill in gaps with the most likely congressional intent

2. Overcomes a legislative disfunction (think interest group dynamics)3. Substitute for other sources: substitute for judges' own preferences, or

substitute for legislative history. This gives you more restraint. If the alternative is the judge imposes his or her own policy preferences, this might enable that. Kind of questionable.

4. Quasi-constitutional Law: can read delegation narrowly to avoid unconstitutional interpretations

II. Constitutional AvoidanceA. Every state or federal statue should be construed so that it does not violate the

Constitution (and the state’s constitution, if it’s a state statute)1. Courts should decide constitutional issues only when necessary

19

a. If the case can be decided on one of two grounds, one of which involves a constitutional question, and the other involves a question of statutory construction or general law, the court will only decide the latter

b. Courts can avoid the plain meaning of the text when that plain meaning raises constitutional issues that would be avoided by another fair interpretation

c. Only applies when there are at least two competing interpretations that are fair constructions of the statute

B. Two specific constitutional requirements that directly affect interpretation:1. Statutes must satisfy due process by providing notice2. Statutes cannot constitute ex post facto laws

C. Ex.: US v. Marshall1. Weighing LSD without considering the concentration may have bizarre results2. Generally culpability is measured by how many doses you have3. Kingpin may have 100 hits that weigh almost nothing4. Street level dealer may have 100 hits that weigh a whole lot more because it’s

on its carrier (blotter paper or whatever)5. This may reverse the roles of the distribution chain, where kingpins, who

should be punished more, get less penalty than the street level dealer6. Arbitrary results7. Potential unconstitutional result - maybe interpret the statute creatively to

avoid thatIII.The Rule of Lenity

A. Criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly1. Individuals should not languish in prison unless the legislature has clearly

articulated precisely what constitutes a crimea. Due Process requires that criminal statutes give fair warning of the

scope of a criminal lawb. A person can be punished for engaging in conduct that a reasonable

person could not know was illegal2. Two conditions precedent to applying the rule of lenity

a. Applies only when the statute has a penal componenti. Not only criminal – can apply when a civil statute has a penal

aspect to it (e.g., taxes)b. Applies not if the statute is ambiguous – only applies if the ambiguity

remains after the court has examined other sources including legislative history

i. Does not mean the tie goes to the runner3. Where two reasonable interpretations of a penal statute exist, one that would

convict and one that wouldn’t, or one that would give a harsher sentence, a court must adopt the interpretation that favors the defendant

IV. Federal Preemption of State LawA. Supremacy Clause: federal law shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges

in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

20

1. Federal law controls in the case of any conflict2. Delicate balance between state and federal interests3. In analyzing whether a federal statute preempts state law, courts often look

beyond the text of the federal statute or regulation and turn immediately to examine the enacting Congress's intent or purpose

4. Federal preemption can be express or implied5. Preemption doctrine gives primacy to purpose and intent rather than text

B. Three types of federal preemption, one express, two implied1. Express Preemption - turns on the existence of a statute expressly preemption

state law2. Implied - where Congress has legislated so comprehensively that federal law

occupies an entire field of regulation and leaves no room for state law3. Implied - where federal law conflicts with state law

C. Express1. Statute includes a preemption clause2. First step in analysis is to determine the scope and meaning of the clause

D. Implied1. Field Preemption

a. When federal statutes are so comprehensive that they occupy an entire field

2. Conflict Preemption: state law that conflicts with federal law is preempteda. When there is a conflict between federal and state law such that either:

i. It is impossible for a party to comply with both laws, orii. State laws "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment" of

federal objectivesE. Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. 2009) p. 424

1. Whether the FDA's approvals provide Wyeth with a complete defense to Levine’s tort claims

2. Whether the FDA's drug labeling judgments preempt state law product liability claims presented on the theory that different labeling judgments were necessary to make drugs reasonably safe for use

3. Two separate preemption arguments: a. It would have been impossible for company to comply with state-law

duty to modify Phenergan's labeling without violating federal lawb. Recognition of Levine's state tort action creates an unacceptable

obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, because it substitutes a lay jury's decision about drug labeling for the expert judgment of the FDA

4. Two cornerstones of preemption jurisprudencea. The purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every

preemption caseb. In all preemption cases, and particularly those in which Congress has

legislated in a field which the states have traditionally occupied, we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the states were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress

21

F. Williamson v. Mazda (U.S. 2011)1. Three subsidiary questions:

a. Whether the statute's express preemption provision preempted that state tort suit

b. The saving clause at least removes tort actions from the scope of the express preemption clause, but does it do more? Does it foreclose or limit the operation of ordinary preemption principles insofar as those principles instruct us to read federal statutes as preempting state laws (including common-law standards) that actually conflict with the federal statutes?

c. Whether, in fact, the state tort action conflicts with the federal regulation?

2. Savings Clause: compliance with a federal standard does not exempt from common law liability

a. Problem is Congress has both the preemption and savings clauses in the same statute: they kind of conflict

b. Normally they kind of cancel each other outc. The savings clause does not foreclose or limit the operation of

ordinary preemption principles, grounded in longstanding precedentd. In implied preemption cases, we usually find the implication where the

state and federal laws can't both be complied withe. Two ways they can be in conflict:

i. Impossibility: can't comply with bothii. Unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of

the purposes and objectives of CongressV. Federalism Canons

A. Clear Statement Rule1. Political safeguards of federalism:

a. Provides statutory protection for the snoozing constitutional values of the 10th and 11th – protect states’ rights

b. Competing factors: i. States are good lobbyists and have influence on federal

political process, will protect federalism valuesii. Judicial safeguards of federalism: court generally upholds

federal law 2. If legislature intends for states to be regulated by a statute, they have to make

it super clear in the statute3. This is a big detour for federal law: it detours around the state as sovereign –

congress has to make a clear statement that the states are regulated 4. Difference between clear statement rule and presumption against preemption

a. Clear statement is like a sledgehammer canonb. Presumption against preemption is like a fly swatterc. Thing about clear statement rule is that a clear text will beat the clear

statement rule - they have to be clear in the text of the law that the statement is covered

22

d. Presumption against preemption can be beaten by all the regular interpretation stuff, text, legislative purpose, etc.

B. Presumption Against Preemption – good or bad? See JH p. 425, fn 31. Wyeth argued that its only in areas of traditional state concern or regulation

where this applies2. Majority disagrees: presumption applies whether it’s a traditional area or not3. Dissenters, Alito et al, agree with Wyeth that preemption should not apply in a

case like this4. Right now they tend not to find that federal law impliedly preempts state law

VI. Substantive Canons in State CourtsA. Some don’t make sense outside of federal context: interfering with Presidential

powers, etc.B. State courts still have a constitutional avoidance doctrine C. Often in preemption disputes, its state tort law that is being preempted. In that case,

often its liberals that don’t want the preemption because they are pro tort, and conservatives that do want the preemption because they want to restrict tort cases in favor of big businesses

VII. Conflicting Statutes A. Two ways statutes can be in conflict

1. Two statutes both seem to apply to a particular circumstance but they conflict with each other

a. Legislatures are presumed to know all existing statutes, but sometimes it seems like they enacted a new statute without taking into account the existence or scope of a previous statute

b. Courts try to interpret statutes so a conflict doesn’t exist, usually by relying on the textual canons or on extrinsic or policy-based sources

c. Sometimes they can't interpret away a conflict and have to decide which statute controls

2. Statute seems to conflict with settles an significant policies: mainly federalism and foreign relations

a. Courts look closely at federal statutes that seem to intrude into matters that are traditionally state concerns

b. This is a specific type of the general problem of federal statutes that appear to conflict with important interests like sovereign immunity

B. The Last-Enacted Rule1. If the court can't interpret two statutes so that a conflict is avoided:

a. Specific statutes control over general ones: a statute that specifically addresses a topic should trump a more generalized one

b. later-enacted statutes control over earlier ones: an earlier statute should be read in light of, and subject to, a later one

C. Implied Repeal1. Courts disfavor repeal by implication because it conflicts with the

presumption that the legislature knew about existing statutes, so it would have explicitly expressed its intent to repeal one

2. Courts are very reluctant to hold that a later-enacted statute impliedly repeals an earlier one unless they first find that:

23

a. The two statutes are in irreconcilable conflict orb. That the later enacted statute covers the whole subject of the earlier

one and is clearly intended as a substituteVIII. Effective Dates & Retroactivity

A. Overview1. Generally statutes are presumed to have only prospective effect2. No retroactive criminal liability; retroactive civil legislation is constitutionally

ok3. Criminal only

a. Ex post facto clause of the Constitution - limitation on retroactive criminal liability. Something can't be made a crime after it has been done.

b. Doesn’t mean there's nothing in the constitution to protect against retroactive civil liability.

4. Civila. When you have civil laws that are retroactive, or it doesn’t say

whether they are, we presume they are not: presumption against retroactivity

b. At one time, there were serious constitutional limits on retroactive civil liability

i. Contracts clause: binds only the states, not the federal government: no state shall impair the obligation of contracts

ii. Takings clauseiii. Today there really isn't any protection against abrogating

contracts or tort liabilityB. Provisions: clause in a statute that says when it starts having effect

1. Federal rule: law becomes effective when the President signs ita. This is default - if it doesn't say, this is whenb. Congress can choose a different effective date

2. Texas: usually the statute says Sept. 1, but if it doesn’t, its 90 days after the close of the session

a. If they want a law to take effect immediately when they pass it, they have to have a 2/3 vote in favor of the law

3. Normal sequence of events:a. Bad conductb. Law regulating the conduct comes into effectc. Case asks whether the law covers when the conduct occurred

C. Retroactivity: attaching new legal consequences to past conduct - legislature needs to be clear that’s what it intended to do

1. General rule: statues are prospective only - don’t govern past conduct2. If a statute is silent regarding coverage, it’s not retroactive

D. Special Cases1. Grandfathering: saying "existing uses are still ok"

a. Can get kind of a perverse legislative effect2. Sex offender registration laws:

24

a. Offense in the past - maybe 20 years ago; there were criminal consequence fulfilled by the defendant

b. Law takes effect; now there is a duty to registerc. It’s not retroactive because it doesn’t create a criminal liability - their

presence in the category of "sex offender" require them to register as a civil liability; only their failure to register creates a criminal liability

E. Procedural Retroactivity1. Generally no presumption against retroactivity when a procedural rule is

changed2. Rule is effective even if you already filed your case before the new rule came

into effect3. Not really retroactive but does change existing rules from when you entered

the court systemF. Mere Clarification

1. When the legislature passed this law, they said it was meant to be merely clarifying to the existing law

2. But it can't be a mere clarification because it would change all of the cases that had been decided under what the court thought the law meant

3. If it has the effect of changing all of the already decided cases, the court says its actually an amendment because the court is the interpreter of the law

4. If you change the law because of how the court interpreted it, you must be making an amendment because once the court interprets is a certain way, that’s now essentially written into the statute

5. Mere clarifications are retroactive because they’re not changing anything6. Ex.: Carrisales (1999):

a. If the Court says the law didn’t mean liability for the harasser, then the legislature clarifies the statute to say yes there is liability for the harasser, the court says this isn't a clarification but a change to the law because the court is the interpreter of the law

b. Underlying event: co-worker harassment, 1998c. Court says no liability for the individual co-worker for engaging in

sexual harassment (employer, not coworker)d. 2000: Amendment: yes there is liability for the individuale. Court says this is an amendment, not a mere clarification, because they

had already interpreted it to not create liability for the individual employee

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIESI. Congressional Methods of Enforcement

A. Criminal casesB. Agency civil enforcement: agency can bring cases against private entitiesC. Private lawsuits - for any of the norms, can allow private parties who are injured by

the violation to bring a case D. State law or federal law: can have a state negligence per se suit based on the federal

substantive lawE. Determining which methods of enforcement are available

25

1. Congress tells us, usually - they say what instruments they want to use2. Sometimes, they don’t - sometimes they're silent about whether there is

private enforcement3. When that happens, it’s possible for the court to find an implied private right

of actionPros Cons

Criminal Penalties

- Send a strong message that the regulation will be enforced- Good general deterrent: punishment is stronger - jail time is serious

- Indictment for a company is a death sentence- Harder to win criminal cases - Courts less likely to find companies/people criminally liable- Risk of political influence on agency- Budgetary issues - if Congress doesn’t like what an agency is doing, it will cut its enforcement budget- Capacity constraints: DOJ can only prosecute so many people

Agency Civil Enforcement

- Expertise – agency knows the most about subject- Uniformity in interpreting the statutes- Big picture view: in a private lawsuit, the court only sees the particular instance- Government has resources to do investigations, spreads the cost- Enforces the intent of the enacting Congress- Counter-majoritarian: the political weight of both the agency and Congress factors into the Court's decision when the Court is on the opposite side of the aisle from the other branches

- Can be politically motivated- Under-enforcement can occur because the scope of agency enforcement is generally huge when they do it

Private Right of Action

- People may be more personally invested because they have been wronged, whereas agencies may not as aggressively pursue a case- Can have class action to make it economical to pursue a small sumCompensation of injured parties – redressability- No political influence

- Potential for a private suit to result in consequences to a violating company that are disproportionate to the wrong done- Small stakes problem - under-enforcement- Over-enforcement: people can all bring a bunch of individual suits for similar violations

II. Agency Authority to RegulateA. When Congress makes new statutes, an Administrative Agency is usually the

immediate recipient of the laws, and tell the public and the Courts how they apply1. Legislature says: agency, do something about acid rain (or whatever)2. Agency has to figure out how much acid is safe, and what to do if there’s

more than the safe level 3. Agency makes a whole bunch of rules and regulations

a. Some kinds of laws don’t go to agencies: usually criminal law, family law

26

B. Bringing agencies into the picture complicates things1. Two ways agencies are relevant

a. Agencies as enforcers of statutesi. Enforcement: who is in charge of enforcing a substantive norm

of conduct as per the statutes?b. Agencies as interpreters of statutes

III.Private Rights of ActionA. Implied Private Right of Action

1. Sometimes in the presence of congressional silence on whether private enforcement is available, courts will allow private rights of action

a. A hundred years ago, courts would nearly always allow a private suit to enforce regulations

b. Post New Deal: private enforcement becomes problematic - there are a whole lot more agencies (lots came into existence during new deal)

c. Through the 60s, Courts were still very willing to imply a private right of action even when Congress was silent

d. Private rights of action are almost never implied todayIV. Enforcement of Statutory Schemes

A. Congress has a substantive norm, and puts an agency in charge of enforcing it1. The idea is that the agency will do ok, but we could get even better

enforcement if private citizens could enforce it too2. Just because the court believes it would be good to have a private remedy

doesn’t mean they can provide it - it could be infringing on Congress' power to legislate

3. Enumerated Powers:a. Congress- Article I – legislatesb. President - Article II – executesc. Courts - Article III – interpretsd. Agencies do all three

i. CRF - rules with the force of law that were not passed by Congress

ii. Art I - they legislate with regulationsiii. Art II - executive power to enforceiv. Art III – adjudicate

V. Agency ControlA. President is most in control of the agencies - he hires and fires themB. Distinction between "executive agencies" and "cabinet departments" and

"independent agencies"1. Independent agencies have multi-member leadership - a commission rather

than a directora. Staggered appointment: one position opens up every few yearsb. President can't fire them at will for no reason

2. Legislative veto: congress can only act through bicameralism and presentment to the President- can't reserve power to one house or the other while delegating the rest to agencies. Would be awesome for Congress but it’ss unconstitutional. (INS v. Chadha)

27

3. When you have unified government (President, House and Senate all the same party), oversight doesn’t really work

C. REINS Act: Proposed bill on agency regulatory power1. Would strip the power of the agencies to pass major regulations2. Instead, the agency would have to propose legislation and it would not take

effect until Congress passes it3. Would be constitutional because it follows bicameralism and presentment

clause4. But its not going anywhere because the President will veto it

D. Administrative Procedure Act1. Sec. 702: anyone aggrieved by an agency action has a right to judicial review

a. Courts are putting some leash on the agencies- they have to follow the law at least in some approximation

b. The agency can't have acted in an arbitrary and capricious way (so there is no way they can have zero justification)

2. Sec. 706: three types of things agencies do:a. Determinations of fact - mostly reviewed merely for substantial

evidence (706(2)(e))i. Not de novo - court doesn’t ask what the actual truth of the

matter isb. Determinations of law/statutory interpretation: construing what the

statute the regulation is based on meansi. There is deference - often, not always, Chevron deference.

c. Policy or discretion: congress tells the agency to deal with the problem how it thinks is best, so the agency has discretion in its policy choices.

d. Reviewed to see if the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious.E. FCC v. Fox: application of arbitrary and capricious standard

1. Agency policy under review: a. FCC's new indecency policy - used to be that a "fleeting:" expletive

wasn’t indecentb. Majority says this is not arbitrary and capricious

i. Scalia wants agencies to be more like courts - have to stick with a policy once they have decided on it

ii. If the change is really a disruptive one, you need more explanation

iii. So when changing policies, agencies don’t have to give as much explanation as a court would, don’t even have to show that there was some change in the world to warrant it

c. Breyer in dissent wants more than that - not just that this new policy is ok, we need to know why you needed to change from the old one

VI. Administrative RulemakingA. Agencies can fill the gaps in statutes in many ways:

1. Adjudication2. Legislative rulemaking3. Non-legislative rulemaking

B. Adjudication

28

1. Formal: like a civil trial in front of an administrative law judge2. Informal: two requirements

a. Agency must decide the issue promptly andb. Must notify the affected party of its decision and provide a brief

statement of the reasons for denialC. Legislative Rulemaking

1. Formal: just like formal adjudication, but at the end, the agency promulgates a regulation that applies broadly rather than an administrative opinion that binds only the parties to it

2. Informal (aka notice-and-comment): a. Agency publishes notice of a proposed regulation in the Federal

Register and solicits comments from the public about the regulationb. Agency collects and responds to comments by publishing bothc. At the end, the agency promulgates a regulation

D. Non-Legislative Rulemaking1. Agency may respond to a regulated entity's question about the meaning of a

regulation or statute (is not an adjudication)2. May issue enforcement guidelines or publish procedural and policy manuals3. Because notice-and-comment rulemaking requires agencies to jump through

hoops, they often opt for non-legislative rulemaking instead (sometimes even if the other kind is statutorily mandated)

VII. Deference to Agency InterpretationA. Deference: Chevron analysis - strong deference to the agency

1. Policy at issue: EPA's construction of the term "Stationary source" in the clean air act. - whether the agency is allowed to have a "stationary bubble" definition

a. No express deference, and a change of policy - and the agency still wins

2. Implicit delegation of authority to the agencya. Justification is:

i. Judges aren’t experts in the field - agencies areii. This is a technical and complex questioniii. Uniformity of policy - agency is nationwide interpretationiv. As a formal matter, congress may have elevated this power in

its delegationv. Courts aren’t electorally responsive or accountable - agencies

may be (i.e. the public could not reelect the person that appointed the agency administration if they don’t like the results

vi. Delegation: any lack of clarity constitutes an implicit delegation

B. Mechanics: The Chevron Two-Step Process1. Chevron Step Zero- is this the kind of agency product we are willing to defer

to?

29

a. Need to decide whether the agency policy or decision gets Chevron or Skidmore level of deference based on the force of law of the agency position

b. Only agency interpretations that carry the force of law get Chevron deference

c. An agency action has force of law when Congress has delegated legislative power to the agency and the agency intended to exercise that power when it acts

d. Interpretations with force of law include formal actions (adjudication, rulemaking) and notice and comment rulemaking

e. Opinion letters, policy statements, agency manuals, enforcement guidelines do not

2. If the position gets deference, then do Chevron analysis – strong deferencea. Chevron Step One: Has Congress directly spoken to the precise

question at issue?i. To determine whether Congress has specifically addressed the

question at issue:One. Court should not confine itself to examining a

particular statutory provision in isolation – the meaning or certain words may only be evident in context

Two. Meaning of one statute may be affected by other acts, particularly where Congress has spoken more specifically to the issue

Three. Also guided by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency

ii. If yes, then need to enforce Congress’ intent, agency doesn’t matter

iii. If no, then step 2b. Chevron Step Two: If the court determines congress hasn’t directly

addressed the precise question:i. Where the statute is silent or ambiguous the court will look to

see if the agency's interpretation is reasonableii. Court doesn't impose its own construction

3. If the agency position is does not get Chevron deference, Skidmore analysis:a. Court evaluates the position for its persuasive valueb. Factors that make the agency’s position persuasive or not

i. Is it thought out? ii. Is it long standing? iii. Are they relying on special expertise?iv. How did they promulgate the rule?v. Is it a major change from a different position?

30