Posted: 26 Apr 2005
Professor Jordan examined Justice Souter's decisions on the New Hampshire Supreme Court in an attempt to discern his likely approach to statutory interpretation. Professor Jordan found that Justice Souter had been something of a textualist, faithful to stare decisis, and comfortable with traditional canons of construction. He suggests that Justice Souter might join Justice Scalia in rejecting reliance upon nontextual legislative history and that he might not consider restrictions on individual freedom to be as significant as restrictions upon states' rights.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Jordan III, William S., Justice David Souter and Statutory Interpretation. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 23, pp. 491-530, 1992. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=711402