Chapter-4
American Citations: Parliamentary Debates onLegislative history
Part-4-22
‘In construing any statute the Court is entitled to have regard to the state of the law at the time the statute was passed’[1].
American courts also place reliance on the history.’Decisions During the Past Decade in which Legislative History was Decisive of Construction of a particular Statutory Provision.’[2] The legislative history of the statute is also contrary to this interpretation. Although Congress located the phrase "competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory" within a savings clause, there is a fair amount of support for the argument that Congress intended this phrase to impose a negative restriction on local authorities' power to regulate.[3]. But there is no evidence to suggest that Congress intended the phrase to impose on local governments an affirmative obligation to enact regulations. If the phrase were meant to impose such an obligation, this point would surely have been mentioned prominently in the legislative history.[4] Questions have been raised about the appropriateness of use of legislative history at stage one of the Chevron analysis.[5]. In fact, the Supreme Court has often referred to legislative history at stage one, most recently in Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline [6] and in a series of earlier cases[7].
Our view is that where traditional doctrines of statutory interpretation have permitted use of legislative history, its use is permissible and even may be required at stage one of Chevron. This appears to be the functional approach of some other circuits as well.[8] The perceived dangers of the use of legislative history are particularly lessened where the legislative history is used as a check on an understanding obtained from text and structure. As we shall see, the legislative history, which is not disputed by the respondent, seems to pose none of the problems of potential manipulation of the system by members of Congress[9].
There are, of course, limitations on the extent to which courts appropriately may rely on the statements of individual legislators to color the meaning of statutory language[10]. Withal, contemporaneous statements by a sponsor, although far from conclusive, are generally entitled to respect.[11]. Moreover, in analyzing legislative history, specificity breeds credibility; thus, particularized explanations of how specific provisions of an act are meant to work have been deemed more instructive than generalized pronouncements anent statutory purpose. See Regan, 468 U.S. at 237, 104 S.Ct. 3026 (recognizing that statements made in floor debates may be persuasive as to Congress's intent when they are "very precisely directed to the intended meaning of particular words in a statute"). The statements we have quoted are of this genre. Perhaps most important, Senator Lautenberg's comments are perfectly consistent with the statutory language and the general purpose of the legislation, and promote a logically and linguistically coherent exegesis of the provision here at issue. They therefore reinforce the construction to which we are led by the plain meaning of the statutory text.[12]
‘In fact, the Supreme Court has used legislative history in different ways at stage one. It has used it merely to confirm plain text reading[13]’It has used legislative history to give content to specific statutory terms said to have different textual meanings.[14]. In addition to the requirement to read the text in context and in light of its place in the overall statutory scheme, the court also found permissible resort to "other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand.[15]" The court then explored the legislative history of both the original and later statutes.[16]
We look to legislative history to check our understanding and determine whether there is a clearly expressed intention by the Congress which is contrary to the plain language of the statute[17].
[1] Bell v. Bell [supra] per LORD KEITH
[2] United States v. Durkee Famous Foods, Inc., [1939] USSC 37; 306 U.S. 68, 59 S.Ct. 456, 83 L.Ed. 492; United States v. Towery, [1939] USSC 53; 306 U.S. 324, 59 S.Ct. 522, 83 L.Ed. 678; Kessler v. Strecher, [1939] USSC 79; 307 U.S. 22, 59 S.Ct. 694, 83 L.Ed. 1082; United States v. Maher, [1939] USSC 93; 307 U.S. 148, 59 S.Ct. 768, 83 L.Ed. 1162; United States v. One 1936 Model Ford, 307 U.S. 219[1939] USSC 104; , 59 S.Ct. 861, 83 L.Ed. 1249; Sanford's Estate v. Commissioner, [1939] USSC 139; 308 U.S. 39, 60 S.Ct. 51, 84 L.Ed. 20; Palmer v. Massachusetts, [1939] USSC 124; 308 U.S. 79, [1939] USSC 124; 60 S.Ct. 34, 84 L.Ed. 93; Valvoline Oil Co. v. United States, [1939] USSC 131; 308 U.S. 141, 60 S.Ct. 160, 84 L.Ed. 151; Haggar Co. v. Helvering, [1940] USSC 67; 308 U.S. 389, 60 S.Ct. 337, 84 L.Ed. 340; American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, [1940] USSC 1; 308 U.S. 401, 60 S.Ct. 300, 84 L.Ed. 347; Kalb v. Feuerstein, [1940] USSC 81; 308 U.S. 433, 60 S.Ct. 343, 84 L.Ed. 370; Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 626, 60 S.Ct. 424, 84 L.Ed. 585, 1035; South Chicago Coal & Dock Co. v. Bassett, [1940] USSC 43; 309 U.S. 251, 60 S.Ct. 544, 84 L.Ed. 732; Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, [1940] USSC 42; 309 U.S. 261, 60 S.Ct. 261, 84 L.Ed. 738; Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 304, 60 S.Ct. 566, 84 L.Ed. 770; Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., [1940] USSC 57; 309 U.S. 390, 60 S.Ct. 681, 84 L.Ed. 825; United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 60 S.Ct. 749, 84 L.Ed. 1050; Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, [1940] USSC 91; 310 U.S. 381, 60 S.Ct. 907, 84 L.Ed. 1263; United States v. American Trucking Ass'n, 310 U.S. 534, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 84 L.Ed. 1345; United States v. Dickerson, [1940] USSC 101; 310 U.S. 554, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356; Helvering v. Northwest Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., [1940] USSC 119; 311 U.S. 46, 61 S.Ct. 109, 85 L.Ed. 29; Neuberger v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 61 S.Ct. 97, 85 L.Ed. 58; Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, Local No. 753 v. Lake Valley Farm Products[1940] USSC 121; , 311 U.S. 91, 61 S.Ct. 122, 85 L.Ed. 63; Helvering v. Janney, [1940] USSC 130; 311 U.S. 189, 61 S.Ct. 241, 85 L.Ed. 118, 131 A.L.R. 980; Taft v. Helvering, [1940] USSC 137; 311 U.S. 195, 61 S.Ct. 244, 85 L.Ed. 122; Hines v. Davidowitz, [1941] USSC 22; 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581; United States v. Gilliland, [1941] USSC 36; 312 U.S. 86, 61 S.Ct. 518, 85 L.Ed. 598; Palmer v. Webster & Atlas National Bank of Boston, [1941] USSC 65; 312 U.S. 156, 61 S.Ct. 542, 85 L.Ed. 642; United States v. Cooper Corp., [1941] USSC 88; 312 U.S. 600, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071; Helvering v. Enright's Estate, [1941] USSC 82; 312 U.S. 636, 61 S.Ct. 777, 85 L.Ed. 1093; Maguire v. Commissioner, [1941] USSC 104; 313 U.S. 1, 61 S.C . 789[1941] USSC 104; , 85 L.Ed. 1149; Helvering v. Campbell, [1941] USSC 100; 313 U.S. 15, 61 S.Ct. 798, 85 L.Ed. 1159; Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, [1941] USSC 117; 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, [1941] USSC 115; 313 U.S. 177, 61 S.Ct. 845, 85 L.Ed. 1271, 133 A.L.R. 1217; Helvering v. William Flaccus Oak Leather Co., 313 U.S. 247, 61 S.Ct. 878, 85 L.Ed. 1310; Benitez Sampayo v. Bank of Nova Scotia, [1941] USSC 132; 313 U.S. 270, 61 S.Ct. 953, 85 L.Ed. 1324; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, [1941] USSC 138; 314 U.S. 44, 62 S.Ct. 6, [1941] USSC 138; 86 L.Ed. 28, 136 A.L.R. 1222; Parker v. Motor Boat Sales Inc., [1942] USSC 10; 314 U.S. 244, 62 S.Ct. 221, 86 L.Ed. 184; Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 314 U.S. 326, 62 S.Ct. 272, 86 L.Ed. 249; Gray v. Powell, [1941] USSC 167; 314 U.S. 402, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301; District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329; Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central Illinois Public Service, [1942] USSC 6; 314 U.S. 498, 510[1942] USSC 6; , 62 S.Ct. 384, 389[1942] USSC 6; , 86 L.Ed. 371; Duncan v. Thompson, [1942] USSC 14; 315 U.S. 1, 62 S.Ct. 422, 86 L.Ed. 575; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland, [1942] USSC 64; 315 U.S. 357, 788[1942] USSC 64; , 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895; United States v. Local 807 of International Brotherhood of Teamsters[1942] USSC 50; , 315 U.S. 521, 62 S.Ct. 642, 86 L.Ed. 1004; Stonite Product Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., [1942] USSC 55; 315 U.S. 561, 62 S.Ct. 780, 86 L.Ed. 1026; National Labor Relations Board v. Electric Vacuum Cleaner Co.[1942] USSC 91; , 315 U.S. 685, 62 S.Ct. 846, 86 L.Ed. 1120; Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., [1942] USSC 89; 315 U.S. 698, 62 S.Ct. 827, 86 L.Ed. 1129, 146 A.L.R. 1104; United States, to Use of Noland Co. v. Irwin, [1942] USSC 100; 316 U.S. 23, 62 S.Ct. 899, 86 L.Ed. 1241; Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., [1942] USSC 98; 316 U.S. 203, 62 S.Ct. 1022, 86 L.Ed. 1381; Kirschbaum v. Walling, [1942] USSC 118; 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Helvering v. Cement Investors, Inc., [1942] USSC 125; 316 U.S. 527, 62 S.Ct. 1125, 86 L.Ed. 1649; Marine Harbor Properties, Inc., v. Manufacturers' Trust Co., [1942] USSC 150; 17 U.S. 78, 63 S.Ct. 93, 87 L.Ed. 64; Braverman v. United States, [1942] USSC 136; 317 U.S. 49, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23; Riggs v. Del Drago, [1942] USSC 139; 317 U.S. 95, 63 S.Ct. 109, 87 L.Ed. 106, 142 A.L.R. 1131; Ex parte Kumezo Kawato, [1942] USSC 137; 317 U.S. 69, 63 S.Ct. 115, 87 L.Ed. 58; State Bank of Hardinsburg v. Brown, 317 U.S. 135, 63 S.Ct. 128, 87 L.Ed. 140; Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corp., [1943] USSC 22; 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 133, 87 L.Ed. 146; United States v. Wayne Pump Co., [1942] USSC 155; 317 U.S. 200, 63 S.Ct. 191, 87 L.Ed. 184; Parker v. Brown, [1943] USSC 8; 317 U.S. 341, 63 S.Ct. 307, 87 L.Ed. 315; Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., [1943] USSC 25; 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460; Harrison v. Northern Trust Co., [1943] USSC 13; 317 U.S. 476, 63 S.Ct. 361, 87 L.Ed. 407; United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, [1943] USSC 54; 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443; United States v. Monia, [1943] USSC 19; 317 U.S. 424, 63 S.Ct. 409, 87 L.Ed. 376; Ziffrin, Inc., v. United States, [1943] USSC 57; 318 U.S. 73, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621; Palmer v. Hoffman, [1943] USSC 52; 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645, 144 A.L.R. 719; Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., [1943] USSC 31; 318 U.S. 125, 63 S.Ct. 494, 87 L.Ed. 656; Robinette v. Helvering[1943] USSC 41; , 318 U.S. 184, 63 S.Ct. 540, 87 L.Ed. 700; Smith v. Shaughnessy, [1943] USSC 42; 318 U.S. 176, 63 S.Ct. 545, 87 L.Ed. 690; Helvering v. Sabine Transp. Co., [1943] USSC 48; 318 U.S. 306, 63 S.Ct. 569, 87 L.Ed. 773; Federal Security Adm'r v. Quaker Oats Co., [1943] USSC 45; 318 U.S. 218, 63 S.Ct. 589, 87 L.Ed. 724, 158 A.L.R. 832; United States v. Swift & Co., [1943] USSC 66; 318 U.S. 442, 63 S.Ct. 684, 87 L.Ed. 889; Ecker v. Western Pac. R. R. Corp., [1943] USSC 82; 318 U.S. 448, 63 S.Ct. 692, 87 L.Ed. 892; Fred Fisher Music Co. v. M. Witmark & Sons, [1943] USSC 71; 318 U.S. 643, 63 S.Ct. 773, 87 L.Ed. 1055; Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 319 U.S. 61, 63 S.Ct. 953, 87 L.Ed. 1258; National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 63 S.Ct. 997, 87 L.Ed. 1344; Boone v. Lightner, [1943] USSC 137; 319 U.S. 561, 63 S.Ct. 1223, 87 L.Ed. 1587; Schneiderman v. United States[1943] USSC 144; , 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796; Hirabayashi v. United States, [1943] USSC 134; 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; Roberts v. United States, [1943] USSC 159; 320 U.S. 264, 64 S.Ct. 113, 88 L.Ed. 41; United States v. Dotterweich, [1943] USSC 168; 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48; Crescent Express Lines v. U ited States[1943] USSC 164; , 320 U.S. 401, 64 S.Ct. 167, 88 L.Ed. 127; Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. United States, [1944] USSC 9; 320 U.S. 422, 64 S.Ct. 227, 88 L.Ed. 143; United States v. Laudani, [1944] USSC 5; 320 U.S. 543, 64 S.Ct. 315, 88 L.Ed. 300, 149 A.L.R. 492; United States v. Myers, [1944] USSC 6; 320 U.S. 561, 64 S.Ct. 337, 88 L.Ed. 312; McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, [1944] USSC 13; 321 U.S. 67, 64 S.Ct. 370, 88 L.Ed. 544; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Enterprise Lodge, No. 27 v. Toledo, P. & W. R. R.[1944] USSC 14; , 321 U.S. 50, 64 S.Ct. 413, 88 L.Ed. 534, 150 A.L.R. 810; B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 126, 64 S.Ct. 471, 88 L.Ed. 602; Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, [1944] USSC 19; 321 U.S. 144, 64 S.Ct. 474, 88 L.Ed. 635; Hecht Co. v. Bowles, [1944] USSC 38; 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed. 754; Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States, [1944] USSC 59; 321 U.S. 634, 64 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed. 978; National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publication, [1944] USSC 91; 322 U.S. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; Carolene Product Co. v. United States, [1944] USSC 118; 323 U.S. 18, 65 S.Ct. 1, 89 L.Ed. 15, 155 A.L.R. 1371; Smith v. Davis, [1944] USSC 130; 323 U.S. 111, 65 S.Ct. 157, 89 L.Ed. 107; United States v. Rosenwasser, [1945] USSC 9; 323 U.S. 360, 65 S.Ct. 295, 89 L.Ed. 301; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, [1945] USSC 17; 323 U.S. 490, 65 S.Ct. 335, 89 L.Ed. 414; Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, [1945] USSC 73; 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322; Central States Electric Co. v. City of Muscatine[1945] USSC 91; , 324 U.S. 138, 65 S.Ct. 565, 89 L.Ed. 801; Gemsco, Inc., v. Walling, [1945] USSC 48; 324 U.S. 244, 65 S.Ct. 605, 89 L.Ed. 921; Canadian Aviator v. United States, [1945] USSC 45; 324 U.S. 215, 65 S.Ct. 639, 89 L.Ed. 901; Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, [1945] USSC 60; 324 U.S. 515, 65 S.Ct. 749, 89 L.Ed. 1150; A. H. Phillips, Inc., v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 65 S.Ct. 807, 89 L.Ed. 1095, 157 A.L.R. 876; Brooklyn Sav. Bank v. O'Neil, [1945] USSC 90; 324 U.S. 697, 65 S.Ct. 895, 89 L.Ed. 1296; Federal Trade Commission v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., [1945] USSC 79; 324 U.S. 746, 65 S.Ct. 971, 89 L.Ed. 1338; Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine Workers of America[1945] USSC 88; , 325 U.S. 161, 65 S.Ct. 1063, 89 L.Ed. 1534; Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, [1945] USSC 144; 325 U.S. 711, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Parker, [1945] USSC 137; 326 U.S. 60, 6[1945] USSC 137; 5 S.Ct. 1490, 89 L.Ed. 2051; Markham v. Cabell, [1945] USSC 159; 326 U.S. 404, 66 S.Ct. 193, 90 L.Ed. 165; John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, [1946] USSC 19; 326 U.S. 521, 66 S.Ct. 299, 90 L.Ed. 278; Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling [1946] USSC 20; 326 U.S. 657, 66 S.Ct. 413, 90 L.Ed. 383; Mabee v White Plains Pub Co., [1946] USSC 32; 327 U.S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607; Duggan v. Sansberry, [1946] USSC 49; 327 U.S. 499, 66 S.Ct. 657, 90 L.Ed. 809; United States v. Carbone, [1946] USSC 67; 327 U.S. 633, 66 S.Ct. 734, 90 L.Ed. 904; Williams v. United States, [1946] USSC 72 ; 327 US 711, 66 S.Ct. 778, 90 L.Ed. 962; Federal Trade Commission v. A. P. W. Paper Co., [1946] USSC 88; 328 U.S. 193, 66 S.Ct. 932, 90 L.Ed. 1165; Hust v. Moore-McCormack, [1946] USSC 107; 328 U.S. 707, 66 S.Ct. 1218, 90 L.Ed 1534; United States v. Sheridan, [1947] USSC 20; 329 U.S. 379, 67 S.Ct. 332, 91 L.Ed. 359; Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, [1947] USSC 22; 330 U.S. 127, 67 S.Ct. 544[1947] USSC 22; , 91 L.Ed. 794; United States v. United Mine Workers of America, [1947] USSC 40; 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. United States 330 U.S. 395, 67 S.Ct. 775, 91 L.Ed 973; American Stevedores Inc. v. Porello, [1947] USSC 108; 330 U.S. 446, 67 S.Ct. 847, 91 L.Ed. 1011; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Mechling, [1947] USSC 52; 330 U.S. 567, 67 S.Ct. 894, 91 L.Ed. 1102; United States v. Ogilvie Hardware Co., [1947] USSC 62; 330 U.S. 709, 67 S.Ct. 997, 91 L.Ed. 1192; McCullough v. Kammerer Corp., 331 U.S. 96, 67 S.Ct. 1165, 91 L.Ed. 1365; Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. United States, [1947] USSC 67; 331 U.S. 132, 67 S.Ct. 1168, 91 L.Ed. 1391; Williams v. Austrian, [1947] USSC 105; 331 U.S. 642, 67 S.Ct. 1443, 91 L.Ed. 1718; Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., [1948] USSC 29; 332 U.S. 524, 68 S.Ct. 229; Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, [1948] USSC 14; 333 U.S. 6, 68 S.Ct. 374; Hilton v. Sullivan[1948] USSC 73; , 334 U.S. 323, 68 S.Ct. 1020; United States v. National City Lines, 334 U.S. 573, 68 S.Ct. 1169; United States v. Zazove, [1948] USSC 105; 334 U.S. 602, 68 S.Ct. 1284; United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations, [1948] USSC 95; 335 U.S. 106, 68 S.Ct. 1349; Shapiro v. United States, 335 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 375; Ahrens v. Clark, [1948] USSC 91; 335 U.S. 188, 68 S.Ct. 1443.
[3] See, e.g., 141 Cong. Rec. H8460, H8461 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (discussing the need to ensure that cities' franchise fee schemes treat competitors equally)
[4] Cablevision of Boston, Inc , Plaintiff, Appellant, v Public Improvement Commission of the City of Boston; Joseph f Casazza, Michael Galvin, Gary Mocia, Para M Jayasinghe, and Stephen Shea, as Commissioners of the Public Improvement Commission of the City of Boston; City of Boston; Boston Edison Co; Becocom, Inc ; RCN-Becocom, LLC; RCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, Inc ; and RCN Corporation, Defendants, Appellees [1999] USCA1 210; 184 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 1999) (25 August 1999)
[5] See, e.g., Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.[2004] USCA2 261; , 376 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir.2004)
[6] Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, [2004] USSC 13; 540 U.S. 581, 124 S.Ct. 1236, 1243[2004] USSC 13; , 157 L.Ed.2d 1094 (2004)
[7] See FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., [2000] USSC 24; 529 U.S. 120, 133[2000] USSC 24; , 120 S.Ct. 1291, 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (using "later [congressional] Acts" which spoke "more specifically to the topic at hand" to determine whether the statute evidenced a clear congressional intent in Chevron step one); MCI Telecomms. v. AT & T, [1994] USSC 24; 512 U.S. 218, 232-33[1994] USSC 24; , 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994) (examining legislative histories of later enactments and finding them inconclusive); Pauley, 501 U.S. at 697-99[1991] USSC 116; , 111 S.Ct. 2524 (examining the text of statute and legislative history to determine that Congress intended to delegate to the agency broad policymaking discretion); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., [1990] USSC 108; 496 U.S. 633, 648-50[1990] USSC 108; , 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110 L.Ed.2d 579 (1990) (using legislative history in Chevron step one as another "traditional tool[ ] of statutory construction" to conclude that the statute did not "evince a clear congressional intent"); Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., [1988] USSC 187; 488 U.S. 204, 214[1988] USSC 187; , 109 S.Ct. 468, 102 L.Ed.2d 493 (1988) (using legislative history as a check where statutory text is clear that the Secretary had no authority); Japan Whaling Ass'n v. Am. Cetacean Soc'y, [1986] USSC 161; 478 U.S. 221, 233-41, 106 S.Ct. 2860, 92 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) (examining legislative history and determining that Congress has not directly spoken to the issue).30
[8] See Coke, 376 F.3d at 127 (using legislative history at step one "without attaching primacy" to it); Am. Rivers v. F.E.R.C., 201 F.3d 1186, 1196 & n. 16 (9th Cir.2000) (adhering to the practice of considering legislative history in Chevron step one).
[9] See Strickland, 48 F.3d at 17 n. 3 (reciting the arguments of critics that "legislative history is written by staffers rather than by Congress itself; that it is easily manipulated; that it complicates the tasks of execution and obedience; and that it often is shaped by members of Congress who cannot achieve passage of a desired interpretation in the actual text of an enacted statute").
[10]See, e.g., Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 237, 104 S.Ct. 3026, 82 L.Ed.2d 171 (1984)
[11] See North Haven Bd. of Educ. v. Bell, [1982] USSC 95; 456 U.S. 512, 526-27[1982] USSC 95; , 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982); FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., [1976] USSC 122; 426 U.S. 548, 564[1976] USSC 122; , 96 S.Ct. 2295, 49 L.Ed.2d 49 (1976)
[12]See Brock v. Pierce County, [1986] USSC 96; 476 U.S. 253, 263[1986] USSC 96; , 106 S.Ct. 1834, 90 L.Ed.2d 248 (1986) (noting that statements in floor debates evidence legislative intent when they are consistent with statutory language and other legislative history)
[13] .Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 496 U.S. at 649[1990] USSC 108; , 110 S.Ct. 2668; Bowen, 488 U.S. at 214[1988] USSC 187; , 109 S.Ct. 468; Japan Whaling Ass'n, 478 U.S. at 233-41, 106 S.Ct. 2860.
[14] Gen. Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 124 S.Ct. at 1244 (statutory term "age" in ADEA refers to use of ADEA as a remedy for "unfair preference based on relative youth")
[15] Id. at 133[2000] USSC 24; , 120 S.Ct. 1291.
[16] Id. at 144-55[2000] USSC 24; , 120 S.Ct. 1291.
[17] See Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 432 & n. 12[1987] USSC 32; , 107 S.Ct. 1207.
No comments:
Post a Comment