Appealing to Congress

71 Pages Posted: 5 May 2016 Last revised: 17 Feb 2017

See all articles by Justin Collings

Justin Collings

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School

Date Written: May 3, 2016

Abstract

In recent years, a swelling chorus of critics has taken aim at the Roberts Court’s (mis)use of avoidance canons. For many of these critics, Exhibit A has been a pair of cases involving constitutional challenges to the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In the first of these cases, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, the Court invoked the avoidance canon and decided the case on (dubious) statutory grounds. It left open the ultimate question of the VRA’s constitutionality, but it did raise constitutional scruples rooted in the novel doctrine of “equal sovereignty.” In the second case, Shelby County v. Holder, the Court relied on those Northwest Austin dicta to invalidate the VRA’s preclearance provisions. Defenders of these decisions suggest that the Northwest Austin Court clearly signaled to Congress that the VRA was in constitutional peril, and that the Shelby County Court simply made good on that earlier admonition. Long ago Alexander Bickel wrote that, in constitutional cases, the Supreme Court “nearly always has three courses of action open to it: it may strike down legislation as inconsistent with principle; it may legitimate it; or it may do neither.” The avoidance canon has, in the view of the Roberts Court’s defenders, been the Court’s favored way of “doing neither.”

But, as an alternative to invalidating or upholding a federal statute, the modern avoidance canon leaves much to be desired. This Article describes why this is so, and points to a more attractive “third way,” one first developed in Germany. In judgments known as “appeal decisions,” the German Constitutional Court does one of two things: it either declares that the challenged law is constitutional “as yet,” or it rules that the law’s unconstitutionality must be provisionally accepted. In both cases, the Court “appeals” to the legislature to act affirmatively — in the one case to prevent a foreseeable constitutional defect; in the other to cure a defect that already exists. Counterintuitively, this seemingly aggressive practice can actually promote dialogue and deference.

At a superficial level, the U.S. Supreme Court has long engaged in analogous practices. But those practices have been covert, half-hearted, and inadequate. Of late, the situation has grown worse. This Article contends that there would be great advantages to adopting the German practice openly and in full. The U.S. Supreme Court should, in certain settings, appeal to Congress.

Keywords: Constitutional law, Judicial Review, Comparative Constitutional Law, Constitutional Avoidance, Laws Heading toward Unconstitutionality

Suggested Citation

Collings, Justin, Appealing to Congress (May 3, 2016). 50 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 463, 2016; BYU Law Research Paper No. 16-18. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2774454

Justin Collings (Contact Author)

Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School ( email )

430 JRCB
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
54
Abstract Views
467
rank
383,454
PlumX Metrics