Interpretation, Remedy, and the Rule of Law: Why Courts Should Have the Courage of Their Convictions

Administrative Law Review, Volume 74, No. 4 (forthcoming 2022)

C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Research Paper No. 22-09

50 Pages Posted: 24 Jun 2022

See all articles by Ronald A. Cass

Ronald A. Cass

Center for the Rule of Law; Cass & Associates, PC; Boston University School of Law; George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Jack Michael Beermann

Boston University - School of Law

Date Written: June 22, 2022

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex opens a window on a set of issues debated in different contexts for decades. These issues—how to interpret statutes and constitutional provisions, what sources to look to, whether so far as possible to adopt interpretations that avoid declaring actions of coordinate branches unconstitutional, and where such actions are deemed to have been unconstitutional whether to provide remedies that cabin the most significant implications of such a declaration—go to the heart of the judicial role and the division of responsibilities among the branches of government.

Our principal focus, however, is on the question of remedy. When the Court’s members find that a plausible—really, the most plausible—reading of a law would make it unconstitutional, what should the Court do? Many Supreme Court pronouncements and much academic commentary suggest that courts should interpret statutes to be consistent with the Constitution whenever possible, even if that requires some degree of judicial creativity. That instinct has a long and distinguished pedigree, but it is ultimately a much-overstated direction to the courts.

Following an introduction, Part II of this article reviews the background and opinions in Arthrex. Part III describes the precedents respecting remedies for structures that the Supreme Court has found violate constitutional requirements. We return in that Part to the reasons that Arthrex’s remedy is at odds with generally accepted, and well-grounded, approaches to dealing with separation-of-powers problems. Part IV considers arguments for different approaches to interpretation and remedy when the Supreme Court faces potential constitutional concerns. This Part concludes with discussion of pragmatic problems that Arthrex-style remedies pose for decisionmaking by Congress and the Court.

Keywords: United States v. Arthrex, Supreme Court, remedies, judicial review, constitutional law, administrative law, separation of powers, rule of law, precedent, statutory interpretation

JEL Classification: H1, H10, H11, K23, K41, Z18, G38

Suggested Citation

Cass, Ronald A. and Beermann, Jack Michael, Interpretation, Remedy, and the Rule of Law: Why Courts Should Have the Courage of Their Convictions (June 22, 2022). Administrative Law Review, Volume 74, No. 4 (forthcoming 2022), C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Research Paper No. 22-09, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4143653

Ronald A. Cass (Contact Author)

Center for the Rule of Law ( email )

9907 Georgetown Pike
Suite 148
Great Falls, VA 22066
United States
703-438-8832 (Phone)

Cass & Associates, PC ( email )

10560 Fox Forest Drive
Great Falls, VA 22066
United States
703-438-7590 (Phone)
703-438-7591 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://www.cassassociates.net

Boston University School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty

Jack Michael Beermann

Boston University - School of Law ( email )

765 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02215
United States
617-353-2577 (Phone)
617-353-3110 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
96
Abstract Views
481
Rank
560,532
PlumX Metrics