Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1107300
 
 

Footnotes (55)



 


 



The Problematic Nature of Contractionist Statutory Interpretations


Brian G. Slocum


University of the Pacific - McGeorge School of Law


Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:     
The main thesis of Daniel B. Rodriguez and Barry R. Weingast's recent article, The Paradox of Expansionist Statutory Interpretations, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 1207 (2007), is important: the voting decisions of legislators can be influenced by the activist statutory interpretations of courts. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that the broad interpretations of progressive legislation made by courts in the 1960s and 1970s undermined the legislative deals struck between ardent supporters of progressive legislation and the moderate legislators necessary for passage of the statutes. Although these expansionist interpretations broadened the reach of important progressive legislation, they had the effect of discouraging moderate legislators from supporting progressive legislation and are partly to blame for the current polarization of Congress and the paucity of such legislation.

Rodriguez and Weingast explain that courts in the 1960s and 1970s were able to achieve expansionist interpretations of progressive legislation by misusing legislative history to support inaccurate conclusions about the intent or purpose of Congress. While the article's insights about expansionist interpretations and the misuse of legislative history are an important contribution to statutory interpretation scholarship, the interpretive mistakes made by courts are largely different now than in the 1960s and 1970s. For some time, the dominant trend has been for judges to rely more on rules of interpretation that typically narrow statutory meaning and less on pragmatic analysis or conclusions about likely congressional intent or purpose. This Essay criticizes the current judicial predilection for contractionist statutory interpretations. The Essay argues that while contractionist interpretations may not discourage moderate legislators from supporting legislation, they are problematic because they are inconsistent with the judiciary's role as faithful agents of Congress.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 17

Keywords: statutory interpretation, Rodriguez, positive political theory, jurisprudence, textualism, intentionalism

JEL Classification: K10, K20, K30

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 18, 2008 ; Last revised: February 27, 2010

Suggested Citation

Slocum, Brian G., The Problematic Nature of Contractionist Statutory Interpretations. Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1107300

Contact Information

Brian G. Slocum (Contact Author)
University of the Pacific - McGeorge School of Law ( email )
3200 Fifth Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95817
United States
(916) 739-7013 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 854
Downloads: 81
Download Rank: 182,731
Footnotes:  55

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.235 seconds