« Law - More on running for judge | Main | Law - Building a Supreme Court practice »
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Law - Statutory construction in the news
Talk about watching paint dry! But really, Charles Lane of the Washington Post had an interesting column yesterday titled "Definition of 'Subparagraph' Is Debated in Court." Some quotes:
Federal regulation of the $2 trillion consumer credit industry may hinge on how the Supreme Court chooses to interpret a single word.That became clear after an oral argument yesterday in which attorneys for a Washington area used car dealer and a disgruntled customer sparred over the meaning of "subparagraph" in the Truth in Lending Act, a federal law that prescribes penalties in cases of unfair or misleading practices by businesses that provide car loans, consumer leases and mortgages. * * *
Though the argument sometimes resembled a class on grammar and usage more than a legal case, Koons Buick Pontiac GMC Inc. v. Nigh, No. 03-377, is no mere matter of semantics. * * *
The argument yesterday showed the court to be as divided as ever over how to interpret disputed statutory language.
Nigh's strongest supporter seemed to be Justice Antonin Scalia, who has long advocated a "textualist" approach to statutory interpretation that discounts legislative history and other evidence beyond the plain wording of a statute.
When Ayer argued that the legislative drafting manuals Congress uses assigned "subparagraph" a meaning consistent with his client's position, Scalia interjected: "I don't want to have to go through the legends of the legislative process every time I interpret a statute."
Ayer responded that the meaning of "subparagraph" had not been changed by any of the amendments TILA had gone through in the last 30 years.
But Scalia was countered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who described his own method this way: "When I read a statute, I first approach it as an English-speaking Martian would," he told Blankingship. "If I did so in this case, I'd agree with you. But the language does support [Koons's] position in that it is a possible reading. [And] if you factor in the history . . . by the time I'm finished I'm ready to abandon the English-speaking Martian, and I'm looking for the human purpose under the statute."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 6, 2004 07:43 AM
Posted to General Law Related