Statutory Construction and Interpretation (Softcover and ebook) General Principles and Recent Trends; Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions; Drafting Federal Grants Statutes; and Tracking Current Federal Legislation and Regulations
Compiled by TheCapitol.Net
This
book reviews the primary rules courts apply to discern a
statute's meaning. However, each matter of interpretation before
a court presents its own challenges, and there is no unified,
systematic approach used in all cases. While schools of
statutory interpretation may vary on what factors should be
considered, all approaches start (if not necessarily end) with
the language and structure of the statute itself. In analyzing a
statute's text, courts are guided by the basic principle that a
statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate
parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context.
The exercise of the judicial power of the United States often
requires that courts construe statutes in applying them in
particular cases and controversies. Judicial interpretation of
the meaning of a statute is authoritative in the matter before
the court. Beyond this, the methodologies and approaches taken
by the courts in discerning meaning can help guide legislative
drafters, legislators, implementing agencies, and private
parties.
This book reviews the primary rules courts apply to discern a
statute's meaning. However, each matter of interpretation before
a court presents its own challenges, and there is no unified,
systematic approach used in all cases. While schools of
statutory interpretation may vary on what factors should be
considered, all approaches start (if not necessarily end) with
the language and structure of the statute itself. In analyzing a
statute's text, courts are guided by the basic principle that a
statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate
parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context.
Still, the meaning of statutory language is not always evident.
To help clarify uncertainty, judges have developed various
interpretive tools in the form of canons of construction.
When drafting federal law, the most important audience is the
federal courts-and, in particular, the Supreme Court of the
United States. Fortunately, it is not difficult to get inside
the mind of the Court and understand how it thinks. The Court
makes this process public in its published opinions;
collectively, the process is known as statutory interpretation.
(It is also known as statutory construction; the differences
between the two terms are not great.)
There are other audiences, of course. The draft will be read and
interpreted by legislators, lobbyists, public officials, private
individuals, industry leaders, journalists, and scholars, to
name a few. In some ways these audiences are very different, but
in two ways they are all alike: Each wants to know the effect of
the draft, and each recognizes that the effect is ultimately
determined by the courts, through judicial methods of statutory
interpretation. The courts always have the last word, and the
Supreme Court has the very last word.
It is true that many principles of statutory interpretation are
simply general principles about how best to read English prose.
But many are not. Some are obvious, some are subtle, some are
counterintuitive, some are traps for the unwary.
Also included is a chapter on drafting federal grants statutes.
Several rules of drafting have special relevance to statutes in
the field of federal assistance (grants), and those are set
forth with a discussion of the special problems facing drafters
of grants laws.
Legislation can be drafted without paying attention to statutory
interpretation. But rules of interpretation are like rules of
the road: Drive on the right; stop on red; signal before
turning; pedestrians have the right of way. If you don't know
all the rules, sooner or later you will park in front of a fire
hydrant or go the wrong way down a one-way street.
1.
Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent
Trends, CRS Report for Congress 97-589, October 14, 2009
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- Introduction
- Statutory Text
- In General-Statutory Context and Purpose
- "Language" Canons of Construction
- In General
- Ordinary and Specialized Meaning
- Terms of Art
- Ordinary Meaning and Dictionary Definitions
- And/Or
- Definite/Indefinite Article
- Shall/May
- Singular/Plural
- General, Specific, and Associated Words
- Grammatical Rules, Punctuation
- Statutory Language Not to be Construed as "Mere
Surplusage"
- Same Phrasing in Same or Related Statutes
- Different Phrasings in Same Statute
- "Congress Knows How to Say ..."
- Statutory Silence
- De Minimis Principle
- "Substantive" Canons of Construction
- Departure from Common Law or Established
Interpretation
- Displacing State Law, Impinging on State Operations
- Abrogation of States' Eleventh Amendment Immunity
- Nationwide Application of Federal Law
- Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
- Non-retroactivity / Effective Date
- Avoidance of Constitutional Issues
- Extraterritorial Application Disfavored
- Judicial Review of Administrative Action
- Deference to Administrative Interpretation
- Repeals by Implication
- Laws of the Same Session
- Appropriations Laws
- Rule of Lenity
- Scienter
- Remedial Statutes
- Statutes Benefitting Indian Tribes
- Miscellany
- Titles of Acts or Sections
- Preambles ("Whereas Clauses")
- Findings and Purposes Sections
- "Sense of Congress" Provisions
- Savings Clauses
- "Notwithstanding Any Other Provision of Law"
- Implied Private Right of Action
- Incorporation by Reference
- Severability
- Deadlines for Administrative Action
- Legislative History
- Plain Meaning Rule
- Uses of Legislative History
- Inferences Based on "Subsequent" Legislative History
- Subsequent Legislation
- Reenactment
- Acquiescence
- "Isolated Statements"
- Presidential Signing Statements
2. Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting
Conventions: A Primer for Judges, by M. Douglass Bellis,
Federal Judicial Center, February 2008
. . . . . . . 55
Introduction
Part I. Sources of Statutory Law
A. What is the authoritative text of federal
legislation?
B. The problem of later amendments to earlier statutes
in the "commonlaw" tradition
C. First attempt at codification-the Revised Statutes of
the United States
D. Complications
E. A second attempt: the U.S. Code, a work in progress
F. The varieties of legal effect of various parts of the
U.S. Code
G. The bottom line on sources of federal statutory law
Part II. Naming Conventions
A. Sections
B. Subsections and paragraphs
C. Clauses
D. Bottom line in dealing with "small divisions"
E. Titles, chapters, and other divisions
F. Various styles, one nomenclature
G. Convention relating to cross references within a unit
Part III. Other Conventions That May Be Useful To Know
A. "Including" means "not limited to"
B. The doctrine of functus officio as applied to
amendatory Acts
C. Definitions under title 1 of the U.S. Code
D. Use of title 5 conventions
E. Reliance on title 28 conventions
F. Criminal fine conventions
G. State-of-mind convention for criminal cases
H. Problems with "willful"
Conclusion
3. "Considering the Courts: Statutory Interpretation,"
Ch. 3 from
Legislative
Drafter's Deskbook, by Tobias Dorsey. . . . . . . 75
3.00 Introduction
3.01 Courts: The Most Important Audience
3.02 What Kind of Judge?
3.10 Judicial Power and Legislative Supremacy
3.11 The Power to Interpret
3.12 Making Congress Follow the Techniques
3.13 Tensions between Courts and Congress over
Interpretation
3.14 Efforts by Congress to Regulate Interpretation
3.20 The Overriding Goal: Determine the Intent of
Congress
3.21 Rules of Thumb, Not Rules of Law
3.22 Three Common Theories (Intentionalism, Textualism,
and Pragmatism) and Their Limitations
3.23 The Plain Meaning Rule
3.24 The Meaning of "Plain Meaning"
3.25 The Consequences of Plain Meaning
3.26 When Plain Meaning Is Not Enforced
3.27 When There Is No Plain Meaning
3.30 Reading the Text of the Statute
3.31 The Whole Act Rule
3.32 Derive Meaning from Context
3.33 Assume Words Are Used Consistently
3.34 Assume Each Word Is Used for a Reason
3.35 Assume the Provisions Form a Coherent Whole
3.36 Purposes, Findings, Titles, and Headings
3.37 Grammar and Punctuation
3.38 Placement in Code
3.40 Considering Other Statutes
3.41 Related Statutes
3.42 General Federal Laws
3.43 Earlier Versions of the Same Statute
3.44 Resolving Conflicts between Statutes
3.50 Considering Constitutional Issues
3.51 Avoiding Serious Constitutional Problems
3.52 When the Court Requires Clear Statements
3.53 When the Court Requires Specific Findings
3.60 Actions hy the President and Other Executive
Officers
3.61 Presidential Signing Statements
3.62 Agency Interpretation and Chevron Deference
3.70 Actions by the Congress and Other Legislative
Officers
3.71 Interpretation of Appropriations Acts
3.72 Legislative History: Why It Is Problematic
3.73 Legislative History Compared with Post-Enactment
Statements
3.74 Legislative History Compared with Subsequent
Legislative History
3.75 Report Language
3.76 Individual Statements
3.77 Hearing Testimony
3.78 Amendatory History
3.79 The Opinion of the Drafter
3.80 Some Topics of Special Interest to Drafters
3.81 Definitions and Terms of Art
3.82 Narrow Interpretations and Broad Interpretations
3.83 Congress Does Not Mumble
3.84 How the Court Interprets a List
3.85 The Court's Reluctance to Imply Additional
Exceptions
3.90 Conclusion
4. A Guide to Federal Grant Statute Drafting, by
Malcolm S. Mason, from "Drafting Federal Grant Statutes:
Studies in Administrative Law and Procedure 90-1,"
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) .
. . . . 125
Preface
Note on 1 U.S.C. 1
Description of the Project
Advisory Group
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Are grant statutes generally well drafted?
B. Some expert assessments indicate that grant statutes
are often not clear
C. Some examples confirm that view
D. The Supreme Court repeatedly finds grant statutes not
clear
E. Ambiguity is sometimes deliberate and sometimes
justified but should be held to a reasonable minimum
F. Who should be interested in grant statute drafting
problems?
II. Planning an assistance program
A. Choice of instrument
1. Is the program to be a grant program as opposed to a
direct federal operation
2. Use a grant when two conditions are present
a. There is an important federal purpose to be served
b. There are also local concerns that should share in
shaping the remedy for the problem perceived, and should
be encouraged to supply drive, imagination, creativity,
modification to local circumstances
3. Should the program instrument be a grant or a
contract?
4. Why should it matter whether one instrument or the
other is used?
5. If the program is to be assistance, is the instrument
to be a grant or cooperative agreement?
B. Types of grants
C. Various programs in addition to grants have
assistance elements
D. Grants in context
1. A grant program need not and generally does not stand
alone
2. Good grant statute drafting calls for at least
consideration of setting the proposed grant statute in a
context of such other activities, and adjusting the
various elements to each other
E. The constitutional basis for grants
F. Grants are a congressional monopoly
G. The administering office
1. If a program is to be a grant program, who should
administer it?
2. It is recommended that absent clear reasons to the
contrary, grant authority should normally be conferred
on agency heads with express or implied power of
delegation rather than on specified subordinates
H. How much discretion should be left to the executive?
I. What should be the funding mechanics of the program?
J. What is the intended class of recipients?
K. Should there be a requirement for local sharing in
the costs?
L. Should there be a requirement for maintenance of
local effort?
M. Should there be a requirement that federal funds not
be used to supplant local efforts?
III. Planning a grant statute
How should a grant statute be structured
A. Outline of a typical grant statute
Sec. 1. Short title
Sec. 2. Table of contents
Sec. 3. Findings and purposes
-- State your sources of power explicitly
-- State your purposes explicitly
Sec. 4. Definitions [and herein other questions of
language]
-- Anticipate litigation
-- Define your terms
-- Plain language can be a trap
-- Borrowed language and borrowed provisions
-- A danger in cut and paste
-- "The drafter should never mindlessly copy the model.
The drafter should approach the model as if it were a
first draft which needs revision. (Usually it does.)"
-- Standardization
-- Remember that your proposed statute is intended to
affect live people
Sec. 5. Establishment of administering office
-- A trap: who's the boss?
-- The problem of micro management
-- Over-demanding rules
Sec. 6. Authorization of appropriations
Sec. 7. Authorization of assistance
-- Do not unnecessarily or inadvertently direct state or
local governments or private bodies to act through
structures or particular officers that the state (or
local government or private body) would not choose for
itself
-- Be explicit about eligibility
-- Be explicit about intended beneficiaries
-- Think about flow-through of grant rules to
subgrantees and contractors under grants
-- Administrative discretion
-- Provide explicitly for discretion
-- Deal explicitly with questions of federal preemption
-- Be explicit about last dollar provisions
-- Autonomy
Sec. 8. Allotment formula
Sec. 9. State plan provisions
Sec. 10. Discretionary grant provisions
Sec. 11. Conditions of assistance
Sec. 12. Accountability, audit, monitoring provisions
Sec. 13. Sanctions and incentives
Sec. 14. Rulemaking power
Sec. 15. Administrative and judicial review provisions
-- Administrative
-- Judicial
-- Disallowance and non-conformity
Sec. 16. Provisions for relationship to allied programs
Sec. 17. Report to Congress
Sec. 18. Repealers, saving harmless, severability,
sunset and miscellaneous provisions
-- Check-up periodically on existing statutes
Sec. 19. Effective date
B. Special considerations in drafting amendatory grant
statutes
-- Leave a track
-- Is redesignation necessary?
-- An amending statute may need a different approach
than an original statute
-- "Consult an experienced program attorney"
C. Some suggestions for general grant statutes
IV. Reference materials
A. Overview and brief preliminary suggestions
B. Bibliography
1. ACIR and ACUS studies
2. Other material related to grants
3. Related to drafting
C. Acronyms and other abbreviations
5. Tracking Current Federal Legislation and
Regulations: A Guide to Resources for Congressional Staff,
CRS Report for Congress RL33895, March 11, 2010
. . . . . . 277
- Introduction
- Tracking Current Federal Legislation
- Official Government Sources
- Non-Government Sources
- Tracking Current Federal Regulations
- Official Government Sources
- Non-Government Sources
- Media Sources
- CRS Resources
- Classes at CRS
- Selected CRS Reports
- Table A-1. Comparison of LIS and THOMAS
- Appendix. A Comparison of LIS and THOMAS
6. Legislative Planning: Considerations for
Congressional Staff, CRS Report for Congress RS20991, June
5, 2008
. . . . . . 291
- Overview
- Define the Problem and Determine the Solution
- Research the Problem
- Determine Strategy
- Outline for Project
- Goal
- Description of Project
- Legislative Strategy
- Other than Legislative Strategy
- Outside Groups Strategy
- Press and Communications Strategy
- Time Line
- Political Opportunity
- Sample Action Plan for Legislative Project
7. Other Resources From TheCapitol.Net
. . . . . 299
Legislative Drafter's Deskbook, by
Tobias A. Dorsey
Capitol Learning
Audio Courses
are a convenient way to learn about the legislative process,
federal budgeting, media relations, business etiquette, and
much more. Each course is between 1/2 hour and 2 hours
long, and includes the course materials.
TheCapitol.Net is a non-partisan firm, and the opinions of its
faculty, authors, clients and of the owners and operators of its
vendors are their own and do not represent those of TheCapitol.Net.