Missing the Mark: An Overlooked Statute Redefines the Debate Over Statutory Interpretation
William S. Blatt
University of Miami - School of Law
November 10, 2009
University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 64, p. 101, 2010
University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-23
Legal scholars have long debated the choice between textualist and intentionalist methods for interpreting statutes. At the center of this debate is Holy Trinity Church v. United States, where the Supreme Court deliberately departed from statutory language. Remarkably, scholars neglect a statute that squarely addressed the issue in the case. This article argues that the neglected statute provides a powerful argument for the Court's result.
The article then considers the implications of this argument for the current debate. The neglected statute reveals that statutory interpretation often turns not on the choice between text and intent but on the choice between competing texts. Making this choice requires an enriched description of the legislative process. The article offers such an account, one recognizes the relative roles of policy specialists, politicians and public opinion.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 23Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 21, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.516 seconds