Protean Statutory Interpretation in the Courts of Appeals
نویسندگان
چکیده
This Article is the first in-depth empirical and doctrinal analysis of differences in statutory interpretation between the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. It is also among the first to anticipate how the Supreme Court’s interpretive approach may shift with the passing of Justice Scalia. We begin by identifying factors that may contribute to interpretive divergence between the two judicial levels, based on their different institutional structures and operational realities. In doing so, we discuss normative implications that may follow from the prospect of such interpretive divergence. We then examine how three circuit courts have used dictionaries and legislative history in three subject matter areas over the past decade and compare these findings in * We received valuable comments on earlier drafts from Bill Eskridge, Aaron-Andrew Bruhl, and participants at a Fordham Law School faculty workshop and a Yale Law School seminar on statutory interpretation. Special thanks to Amy Torres for outstanding research assistance.
منابع مشابه
A Federal Appellate System for the Twenty-First Century
In December 1998, the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals issued a report and recommendations for Congress and the President. The commission resulted from ongoing controversy over splitting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The commissioners clearly suggested that the circuit remain intact but proposed three regionally based adjudicative divisio...
متن کاملThe Role of Judicial Procedure Courts in the Development of Iranian Administrative Law
Today, in leading administrative law systems, the judicial process along with the law is the most important source of legal rules, and the law alone can not feed the legal system. Although in the administrative law system of Iran, the use of judicial procedure has often been considered as a source and interpretation of the law and not as the main source, but the role of administrative courts, ...
متن کاملIs tobacco a drug? Administrative agencies as common law courts.
Professor Cass Sunstein argues that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products. He considers the text of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which supports the FDA assertion, and the context of its enactment, which argues against the FDA. He resolves the tension between text and context in favor of FDA jurisdiction by turning to the emerging role of administrative agencies. ...
متن کاملWhy Abstention Is Not Illegitimate: an Essay on the Distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” Statutory Interpretation and Judicial Lawmaking
When Professor Martin Redish condemned abstention doctrines as violating norms of “institutional legitimacy,” he provoked an informative debate, but one that has largely subsided. This Essay revisits the once-heated debate about abstention’s legitimacy, clarifies its terms, and identifies its stakes. The legitimacy question is not whether abstention decisions are legally correct, but whether ap...
متن کاملDubious Deference: Reassessing Appellate Standards of Review in Immigration Appeals
The long-standing doctrine of deferential review by appellate courts of findings of fact by administrative agencies is seriously flawed for two main reasons. First, the most prominent justification for deference relies on the empirical assumption that first-instance adjudicators are best able to determine the truth because they can directly view witness demeanor. Decades of social science resea...
متن کامل