the legislative process, statutory interpretation, and ... legislative process, statutory...
TRANSCRIPT
The Legislative Process, Statutory Interpretation, and
Administrative Agencies
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page i
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page ii
The Legislative Process, Statutory Interpretation, and
Administrative Agencies
Linda D. JellumEllison Capers Palmer Sr. Professor of Law
Mercer University School of Law
Carolina Academic PressDurham, North Carolina
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page iii
Copyright © 2016Linda D. JellumAll Rights Reserved
Print ISBN 978-1-61163-877-6e-Book ISBN 978-1-61163-977-3LCCN 2016944760
Carolina Academic Press, LLC700 Kent StreetDurham, North Carolina 27701Telephone (919) 489-7486Fax (919) 493-5668www.cap-press.com
Printed in the United States of America
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page iv
This book is dedicated to my children, Chris and Kaylee. You have turned intowonderful young adults despite my less than perfect parenting. I’m extremelyproud of you both.
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page v
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page vi
Contents
Table of Cases xixTable of Secondary Authorities xxixPreface xxxiii
Chapter 1 · Preliminary Matters 3A. Introduction to This Chapter 3B. Why Law Works Well Most of the Time 4
The Food Stays in the Kitchen: Everything I Needed to Know About Statutory Interpretation I Learned by the Time I Was Nine 5
Points for Discussion 9C. An Introduction to Statutory Interpretation 10
Yates v. United States 11Points for Discussion 12
D. Vehicles in the Park 13Hypothetical Problem 14Hypothetical Questions 16
Chapter 2 · Separation of Powers 19A. Introduction to This Chapter 19B. Separation of Powers 19
1. Formalism 202. Functionalism 23INS v. Chadha 27Points for Discussion 34
C. Separation of Powers and Statutory Interpretation 36Yates v. United States 36Points for Discussion 38King v. Burwell 41Points for Discussion 46
D. A Note about Civil Law Systems 47Problem 2 48
Chapter 3 · The Legislative Process 51A. Introduction to This Chapter 51B. The Legislative Movers and Shakers 51
1. Legislatures and Legislators 51
vii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page vii
2. Legislator Qualifications 523. Leadership 534. The Important Role of Committees 545. Staffers and Lobbyists 55
C. How a Bill Becomes an Act 561. Congress’s Role — Bicameral Passage 582. The President’s Role — Presentment and Signing 63
D. Legislative Process Theories 67E. Direct Democracy: The Referendum and Initiative Process 70
Romer v. Evans 72Points for Discussion 79Problem 3 80
Chapter 4 · The Sources and Theories of Interpretation 83A. Introduction to This Chapter 83B. The Art of Statutory Interpretation 83C. The Evidentiary Sources of Meaning 84
1. Intrinsic Sources 842. Extrinsic Sources 853. Policy-Based Sources 85
D. The Theories of Interpretation 871. Textualism 88State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court of Dane County 94Points for Discussion 99
2. Intentionalist-Based Theories 101a. Intentionalism 102Kosak v. United States 104Points for Discussion 108b. Purposivism 111State v. Courchesne 114Points for Discussion 126
3. A Compromise: Alaska’s Sliding Scale Method 130LeFever v. State 131Points for Discussion 135
E. Does Theory Matter? 136Problem 4 137The Case of the Speluncean Explorers 137
Chapter 5 · Canons Based on Intrinsic Sources: The Words 149A. Introduction to This Chapter 149B. The Intrinsic Sources 149C. The Textual Canons: Words and Syntax 149
1. The Plain Meaning Rule 150Smith v. United States 154
viii CONTENTS
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page viii
Points for Discussion 159Bailey v. United States 160Points for Discussion 162Watson v. United States 163Points for Discussion 165Muscarello v. United States 166Points for Discussion 170
2. The Technical Meaning Rule 171Nix v. Hedden 171Points for Discussion 172St. Clair v. Commonwealth 174Points for Discussion 177Problem 5 178Problem Materials 179
Chapter 6 · Canons Based on Intrinsic Sources: Moving Beyond the Words 181
A. Introduction to This Chapter 181B. Looking beyond the Ordinary Meaning of Words 181
1. Ambiguity 181Mayor of Lansing v. Michigan Public Service Commission 184Points for Discussion 190Regina v. Ojibway 193Points for Discussion 194
2. Absurdity (The Golden Rule) 195Public Citizen v. Department Of Justice 198Points for Discussion 201Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. 202Points for Discussion 205But That Is Absurd! Why Specific Absurdity Undermines
Textualism 205Points for Discussion 208Problem 6A 208Materials for Problem 6A 209Problem Questions 210
3. Scrivener’s Error 210United States v. Locke 210Points for Discussion 213
4. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine 214United States v. Marshall 216Points for Discussion 221Problem 6B 223
CONTENTS ix
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page ix
Chapter 7 · Canons Based on Intrinsic Sources: Grammar and Punctuation 227
A. Introduction to This Chapter 227B. The General Punctuation and Grammar Rule 227
Manager v. Board of State Medical Examiners 229Points for Discussion 229
C. Special Punctuation Rules 2301. Commas: The General Rule 230People v. Walsh 231Points for Discussion 233
2. Commas: Special Rules 233a. Reddendo Singula Singulis 233b. The Doctrine of Last Antecedent 234Commonwealth v. Kelly 235Points for Discussion 236Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 236Points for Discussion 239
D. Special Grammar Rules 2401. The Meaning of “And” and “Or” 2412. Singular and Plural 242Sursely v. Peake 242Points for Discussion 245
3. Words with Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter Meaning 2464. Mandatory and Discretionary 247Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Village Of Eolia 248Points for Discussion 250Problem 7 251Problem Questions 252
Chapter 8 · Canons Based on Intrinsic Sources: The Linguistic Canons 253A. Introduction to This Chapter 253B. The Linguistic Canons: An Introduction 253C. The Linguistic Canons: Explained 256
1. In Pari Materia 256a. The Whole Act Aspect of In Pari Materia 257b. The Whole Code Aspect of In Pari Materia 258Smith v. Jackson 259Points for Discussion 263
2. The Presumption of Consistent Usage and Meaningful Variation 263Travelscape, LLC v. South Carolina Department Of Revenue 264Points for Discussion 268
3. Noscitur a Sociis 269G.C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co. 270Points for Discussion 277
x CONTENTS
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page x
4. Ejusdem Generis 278Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons 280Points for Discussion 287Yates v. United States 288Points for Discussion 294
5. The Rule against Surplusage (or Redundancy) 295Begay v. United States 296Points for Discussion 301
6. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius 302Dickens v. Puryear 303Points for Discussion 305Problem 8 306Problem Questions 306
Chapter 9 · Canons Based on Intrinsic Sources: The Components 309A. Introduction to This Chapter 309B. Codification 309C. The Components and Their Canons 311
1. Heading 3112. Titles 312
a. Long Titles and Enacting Clauses 312Holy Trinity Church v. United States 313Points for Discussion 316b. Short Titles 317Caminetti v. United States 319Points for Discussion 323c. Section and Code Titles 324
3. Preambles, Purpose Clauses, and Legislative Findings 325Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. 327Points for Discussion 333
4. The Purview: The Substantive Provisions 334a. Definitions 334Kentucky v. Plowman 336Points for Discussion 341b. Operating and Enforcement Provisions 342c. Severability and Inseverability Provisions 343
i. Severability Provisions 344Alaska Airlines v. Brock 345Points for Discussion 348
ii. Inseverability Clauses 350Louk v. Cormier 351Points for Discussion 354d. Effective Date and Saving Provisions 355Sims v. Adoption Alliance 356
CONTENTS xi
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xi
Points for Discussion 359e. Sunset Provisions 360f. Exceptions and Provisos 361Acree v. Republic Of Iraq 362Points for Discussion 367Problem 9 368Dixon v. Florida 368Maddox v. Florida 370Problem Questions 371
Chapter 10 · Canons Based on Extrinsic Sources and Legislative Process: Harmonizing Statutes 373
A. Introduction to This Chapter 373B. Extrinsic Sources 373C. Conflicting Statutes 374
1. Specific Statutes 3742. Later Enacted Statutes 375Williams v. Kentucky 376Points for Discussion 378
3. Repeal by Implication Is Disfavored 379Morton v. Mancari 380Points for Discussion 384
4. Federal Preemption 387Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen 388Points for Discussion 393Problem 10A 393
D. Statutes Shared Among Jurisdictions 3951. Modeled and Borrowed Statutes 396
a. Modeled Statutes 396b. Borrowed Statutes 396Van Horn v. William Blanchard Co. 397Points for Discussion 402
2. Uniform and Model Acts 403a. Uniform Acts 403b. Model Acts 404Problem 10B 405
Chapter 11 · Canons Based on Extrinsic Sources and Legislative Process: Enactment Context 409
A. Introduction to This Chapter 409B. Using What Occurred Prior to and During Enactment 409
1. Context 409D.C. Federation v. Volpe 410Points for Discussion 411
xii CONTENTS
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xii
2. Legislative History 412a. The Legislative History Hierarchy 413Hirschey v. FERC 414Points for Discussion 416b. Using Legislative History 419c. Criticizing Your Opponent’s Use of Legislative History 420
i. Understanding the Supreme Court’s Use of Legislative History 420Pepper v. Hart 421Points for Discussion 426
ii. The Criticisms of Using Legislative History 429United Steelworkers v. Weber 431Points for Discussion 441
iii. The “Dog Does Not Bark” Canon: When Congress Is Silent 444Problem 11 446Problem Materials 447
Chapter 12 · Canons Based on Extrinsic Sources and Legislative Process: Purpose 451
A. Introduction to This Chapter 451B. Finding and Using Purpose 451
a. Finding Purpose from Text 451Heydon’s Case 452Points for Discussion 452
b. Finding Purpose from Legislative History 453Church of The Holy Trinity v. United States 453Points for Discussion 456
c. Using Purpose 457Ohio Division of Wildlife v. Clifton 458Points for Discussion 462Problem 12 463Problem Materials 464
Chapter 13 · Canons Based on Extrinsic Sources and Legislative Process: Post-Enactment Legislative Context 467
A. Introduction to This Chapter 467B. Using What Occurred After Enactment 467
1. Subsequent Legislative Inaction 467a. Super Strong Stare Decisis 467b. Legislative Acquiescence 468Flood v. Kuhn 470Points for Discussion 474
2. Subsequent Legislative Action 476a. Subsequent Acts 476Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 477
CONTENTS xiii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xiii
Points for Discussion 484b. “Subsequent Legislative History” 486Montana Wilderness Ass’n v. United States Forest Service 487Points for Discussion 490c. The Reenactment Canon 491d. Testimony by and Affidavits from Legislators and Staff Members 492Problem 13 493
Chapter 14 · Canons Based on Policy-Based Considerations: Constitutional 497
A. Introduction to This Chapter 497B. Introduction to Policy-Based Sources 497C. Law’s Hierarchy 498D. Policy-Based Canons Based on the Constitution 500
1. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine 500NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago 500Points for Discussion 504
2. The Rule of Lenity and Penal Statutes 505Keeler v. Superior Court 507Points for Discussion 509
3. Retroactive Civil Statutes 5124. Retroactive Criminal Statutes and the Ex Post Facto Clause 515Bouie v. Columbia 516Points for Discussion 520
5. Clear Statement Rules 521a. Federalism 522Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. 523Points for Discussion 530b. Preemption 531c. American Indian Treaty Rights 532d. Sovereign Immunity 533Burch v. Secretary of Health & Human Services 533Points for Discussion 537Problem 14 538Problem Materials 539
Chapter 15 · Canons Based on Policy-Based Considerations: Prudential 541A. Introduction to This Chapter 541B. Statutes v. Common Law 541
1. Statutes in Derogation 5412. Remedial Statutes 543Blankfield v. Richmond Health Care, Inc. 543Points for Discussion 547
C. Implied Causes of Action and Remedies 549
xiv CONTENTS
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xiv
Alexander v. Sandoval 551Points for Discussion 555Problem 15 558
Chapter 16 · The Regulatory Process: Introduction to Agencies 561A. Introduction to This Chapter 561B. What Agencies Are 561
Franklin v. Massachusetts 562Points for Discussion 563
C. Why Agencies Regulate: A Case Study 564D. How Agencies Regulate 568
1. Rulemaking 568a. Legislative Rulemaking 569b. Non-Legislative Rulemaking 571
2. Adjudication 5723. Investigation 574
E. Where Agencies Fit Constitutionally 5771. Delegation of Legislative Power 577
a. Historical Doctrine 577b. Modern Doctrine 579Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’n 579Points for Discussion 582
2. Delegation of Judicial Power 583Stern v. Marshall 585Points for Discussion 591Problem 16 592
Chapter 17 · The Regulatory Process: Legislative and Executive Oversight 593A. Introduction to this Chapter 593B. Legislative Oversight 593
1. Direct Legislative Oversight 593Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill 594Points for Discussion 602
2. Indirect Legislative Oversight 603C. Executive Oversight 604
1. Direct Executive Oversight 604a. Appointment 604b. Removal 606Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board 609Points for Discussion 618c. Executive Orders 620
2. Indirect Executive Oversight 624a. Presidential Signing Statements 624U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 625
CONTENTS xv
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xv
Points for Discussion 627Problem 17 630
Chapter 18 · The Regulatory Process: Deference to Agency Interpretations 633A. Introduction to This Chapter 633B. The Interpretive Role Agencies Play 634C. Deference Pre-Chevron 636
Skidmore v. Swift & Co. 637Points for Discussion 639
D. Chevron 640Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 640Points for Discussion 645Problem 18A 648
E. Applying Chevron 649Zuni Public School District v. Department Of Education 650Points for Discussion 656Problem 18B 657
Chapter 19 · The Regulatory Process: Deference to Agency Interpretations Post-Chevron 661
A. Introduction to This Chapter 661B. Chevron Step Zero 661
1. What Did the Agency Interpret? 6622. Which Agency Interpreted the Statute 6633. How Did the Agency Interpret the Statute: Force of Law 664United States v. Mead Corp. 668Points for Discussion 674
4. Can the Agency Interpret the Statute? 675King v. Burwell 678Points for Discussion 686Problem 19A 688Problem 19B 688
C. Agency Interpretations that Conflict with Judicial Interpretations 690National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services 691
Points for Discussion 695United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC 698Points for Discussion 704Problem 19C 705
Chapter 20 · Conclusion: The Linear Approach to Statutory Interpretation 707A. Introduction to This Chapter 707B. The Linear Approach in Action 710
People v. Spriggs 710
xvi CONTENTS
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xvi
Points for Discussion 713Problem 20 714
Appendix A · Glossary 719Appendix B · House Bill 916 727Appendix C · Companion Senate Bill to H.R. 916 733Appendix D · Senate Report 110-051 739
Index 743
CONTENTS xvii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xvii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xviii
Table of Cases
xix
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. UnitedStates, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), 578, 581
Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 370 F.3d 41(D.C. Cir. 2004), 360, 362
Aina-Marshall v. United States, 336 F.3d167 (2d Cir. 2003), 493
Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678(1987), 344, 345
Alston-Graves v. United States, 435 F.3d331 (D.C. Cir. 2006), 493
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275(2001), 551
Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552U.S. 214 (2008), 280, 292
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523U.S. 224 (1998), 216, 324
American Mining Congress v. Mine Safety& Health Administration, 995 F.2d1106, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 666
America Online, Inc. v. United States,64 Federal Cl. 571 (Federal Cl.2005), 444
American Meat Institute v. Barnett, 64 F.Supp. 2d 906, 916 (D.S.D. 1999), 492
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309v. Laidlaw Transit Services, Inc., 435F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2006), 430, 457
Anchorage v. Sisters of Providence inWashington, Inc., 628 P.2d 22(Alaska 1981), 131
Association of American Physicians &Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F.2d898 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 664
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997),3, 662
Avery v. People, 38 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2002),511
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Com-munities, 515 U.S. 687 (1995), 255,510
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137(1995), 160, 164, 166
Bank One v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co.,516 U.S. 264 (1996), 334
Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S.438 (2002), 197
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20(2003), 239
Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U.S. 212(2002), 665, 675
Bass v. United States, 404 U.S. 336(1971), 235, 506
Beaty v. United States, 245 F.3d 617(6th Cir.2001), 493
Bebo v. SEC, 799 F.3d 765 (7th Cir.2015), 573
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137(2008), 279, 288, 290, 296
BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S.531 (1994), 522
Biswell v. United States, 406 U.S. 311(1972), 576
Biszko v. RIHT Fin. Corp., 758 F.2d 769(1st Cir. 1985), 350
Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87(1989), 429
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xix
Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care,Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. Dist. Ct.App. 2005), 542
Blitz v. Beth Isaac Adas Israel Congrega-tion, 720 A.2d 912 (Md. 1998), 404
Bocchino v. Nationwide Mutual Fire In-surance, Co., 716 A.2d 883 (Conn.1998), 475
Bouie v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 347(1964), 516
Boroughs v. Oliver, 64 So. 2d 338(Miss. 1953), 542
Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.,325 U.S. 410 (1945), 662
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186(1986), 75, 79
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986),20, 22, 23, 582, 607
Brady v. United States, 26 F.3d 282 (2dCir. 1994), 515
Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Balti-more & O. R. Co., 331 U.S. 519(1947), 324
Brown v. Arp & Hammond HardwareCo., 141 P.3d 673 (Wyo. 2006), 405
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.483 (1954), 468
Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994),244, 246
Brown v. State, 551 S.E.2d 773 (Ga. Ct.App. 2001), 130
Buckley v. Estate of Pirolo, 500 A.2d 703(N.J. 1985), 402
Burch v. Secretary of Health & HumanServices, 2001 WL 180129 (FederalCl. 2001), 533, 541, 547
Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129(1991), 197
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134S. Ct. 2751 (2014), 197
Busch v. State, 523 S.E.2d 21 (Ga.1999), 130
Bussey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1985), 324
C.J. Tower & Sons, 1947 WL 6081(Cust. Ct.), 173
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386(1798), 515
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S.523 (1967), 575
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S.470 (1917), 319
Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441U.S. 677 (1979), 550
Carmel Hollow Assocs. Ltd. Partnershipv. Bethlehem, 848 A.2d 451 (Conn.2004), 127
Carter v. Carter Coal Co. 298 U.S. 238(1936), 578, 579
Carrisales v. Department of Corrections,988 P.2d 1083 (1999), 514
Case of the College of Physicians, 8 Co.Rep. 107a, 77 Eng. Rep. 638 (C.P.1610), 498
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 533U.S. 442 (2008), 556
CF Industries, Inc. v. Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission, 925 F.2d476 (D.C. Cir. 1991), 664
Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453(1991), 216, 223, 500
Chatham v. Sanamon, 814 N.E.2d 216(Ill. Ct. App. 2004), 263
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v.EPA, 873 F.2d 1477 (D.C. Cir.1989), 574
Chevoor v. United States, 526 F.2d 178(1st Cir. 1975), 225
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Re-sources Defense Council, Inc., 467U.S. 837 (1984), 428, 477, 485, 574,635, 640, 651, 668, 699
Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534U.S. 84 (2001), 296
Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 404(1991), 87, 151, 445
Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S.576 (2000), 665, 670
Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Village ofEolia, 895 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App.1995), 248
xx TABLE OF CASES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xx
Church of Scientology v. DOJ, 612 F.2d417 (9th Cir. 1979), 114, 462, 463
Church of the Holy Trinity v. UnitedStates, 143 U.S. 457 (1892), 109,111, 183, 199, 313, 316, 322, 414,427, 432, 453, 601, 654
Circuit Court of Dane County v. Stateex rel. Kalal, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis.2004), 89, 94
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v.Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971), 635, 648
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310(2010), 349
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne LivingCenter, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985), 80
City of Columbiana v. J & J Car Wash,Inc., 2005 WL 678750 (Ohio Ct.App. 2005), 263
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318U.S. 363 (1943), 499
Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14(1945), 475
Cleveland Board of Education v. Louder-mill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), 574
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S.417 (1998), 63, 197, 629
Coatoam v. United States, 245 F.3d 553(6th Cir. 2001), 210
Cobb County v. Robertson, 724 S.E.2d478 (Ga. App. 2012), 248
Cockrum v. Fox, 199 S.W.3d 69 (Ark.2004), 548
Cogdell v. United States, F.2d 179, 183(4th Cir. 1988), 225
Cohen v. Rubin, 460 A.2d 1046 (Md.Ct. Spec. App. 1983), 548
Colonade Catering Corp. v. UnitedStates, 397 U.S. 72 (1970), 576
Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, 357 U.S.28 (1958), 697, 678
Commodity Futures Trading Commis-sion v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986),25, 589
Commonwealth v. Besch, 674 A.2d 655(Pa. 1996), 326
Commonwealth. v. Henninger, 25 Pa. D.& C.3d 625 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 1981),247
Commonwealth v. Kelley, 58 N.E. 691(Mass. 1900), 235
Commonwealth v. Plowman, 86 S.W.3d47 (Ky. 2002), 279
Commonwealth v. Smith, 728 N.E.2d272 (Mass. 2000), 310
Community Nutrition Institute v. Block,749 F.2d 50 (1984), 258
Conroy v. Anskoff, 507 U.S. 511 (1993),91
Consumer Product Safety Commission v.GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102 (1980),486
Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko,534 U.S. 61 (2001), 556
Corkill v. Knowles, 955 P.2d 438 (Wyo.1998), 548
Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), 550,552, 554
State v. Courchesne, 816 A.2d 562(Conn. 2003), 85, 88, 114, 131, 510
Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932),584
D.C. Federation of Civic Ass’ns, Inc. v.Airis, 391 F.2d 478 (1968), 410, 412
D.C. Federation v. Volpe, 308 F. Supp423 (D.D.C. 1970), 410
DaCosta v. Nixon, 55 F.R.D. 145(E.D.N.Y. 1972), 629
Daniel v. United National Bank, 505S.E.2d 711 (W. Va. 1998), 247
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890),73, 78, 79
Demko v. United States, 216 F.3d 1053(Federal Cir. 2000), 183
Dept. of Revenue v. Bi-More, Inc., 286P.3d 417 (Wash. 2012), 183
Department of Transportation v. Associ-ation of American Railroads, 135 S.Ct. 1225 (2015), 562, 579
Dickens v. Puryear, 276 S.E.2d 325(N.C. 1981), 153, 173, 303
TABLE OF CASES xxi
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxi
Ditta v. People, 422 N.E.2d 515 (N.Y.1981), 86, 512
Dixon v. Florida, 812 So. 2d 595 (Fla.Dist Ct. App. 2002), 150, 368
Doe v. County of Centre, 242 F.3d 437(3rd Cir. 2001), 556
Dominion Energy v. Johnson, 443 F.3d12 (1st Cir. 2006), 574
Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594(1981), 576
Duka v. SEC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS124444 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2015),573
Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651(1997), 605, 613
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers,282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009), 84
Elliott v. Virginia, 593 S.E.2d 263 (Va.2004), 350
English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72(1990), 387
Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. LaJollaIndians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984), 248
Ex parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 230 (13 Pet.230) (1839), 608
Falvey v. United States, 676 F.2d 871(1st Cir. 1982), 410
Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775(1998), 468
Farrior v. Sodexho, U.S.A., 953 F. Supp.1301 (N.D. Ala. 1997), 350
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556U.S. 502 (2009), 485
Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown &Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S.120 (2000), 476, 477, 653, 676, 680
Federal Baseball Club v. NationalLeague, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), 470
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Philadel-phia Gear Corp., 476 U.S. 426(1986), 665
Feld v. Robert & Charles Beauty Salon,459 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 1990), 295
Fields v. People, 105 Cal. App. 3d 341(1980), 280, 287
Fink v. City of Detroit, 333 N.W.2d 376(Mich. Ct. App. 1983), 248
Fitzgibbon v. United States, 619 F.2d874 (10th Cir. 1980), 225
Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972),412, 469, 470
Flores v. United States, 454 F.3d 149 (3dCir. 2006), 493
Florida Department of Highway Safety& Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez, 74So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 2011), 90, 256
Florida Department of Revenue v. Pic-cadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33(2008)183, 184, 523
FLRA v. U.S. Department of Treasury,884 F.2d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 664
Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra ProductsCorp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), 491
Fowler v. State, 70 P.3d 1106 (Alaska2003), 355
Franklin v. Gwinnett County PublicSchools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992), 557
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788(1992), 562
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Ac-counting Oversight Board, 561 U.S.477 (2010), 26, 151, 606, 609
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868(1991), 605
Fuchs v. United States, 467 F.3d 889(5th Cir.2006), 493
G.C. Timmis & Co. v. Guardian AlarmCo., 662 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 2003),270
Gallegos v. State ex rel. Helman, 871P.2d 1352 (N.M. 1994), 93
Gay & Lesbian Law Students Ass’n v.Board of Trustees, 673 A.2d 484(Conn. 1996), 361
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243(2006), 662, 676, 677
Gonzalez v. United States, 407 F.3d 118(2d Cir. 2005), 506, 510
Goswami v. American Collections Enter-prises, Inc., 377 F.3d 488 (5th Cir.2004), 181
xxii TABLE OF CASES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxii
Granderson v. United States, 511 U.S.39 (1994), 210
Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402 (1941),636
Gray Financial Group, Inc., v. SEC,2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131792 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 4, 2015), 573
Green v. Bock Laundry Mach. Co., 490U.S. 504 (1989), 91, 98, 197, 199,202, 222
Gregg v. Barrett, 771 F.2d 539(D.C.Cir.1985), 56
Grunke v. State, 752 N.W.2d 769 (Wis.2008), 90
Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624(2d Cir. 1944), 109
Guzek v. State, 906 P.2d 272 (Or. 1995),71
Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1993),532
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557(2006), 419, 430, 442, 630, 676, 677
Harding v. Wealands, [2006] UKHL 32,427
Harrisburg v. Franklin, 806 F. Supp1181 (M.D. Pa. 1992), 103, 418
Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446U.S. 578 (1980), 444
Heckler v. Community Health Services,Inc., 467 U.S. 51 (1984), 213
Heydon’s Case, 76 Eng. Rep. 637 (Ex.1584), 119, 452, 453, 545, 548
Hill v. SEC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS74822 (N.D. Ga. June 8, 2015), 573,619
Hirschey v. Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission, 777 F.2d 1 (1985), 414
Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Olsen, 692 S.W.2d850 (Tenn. 1985), 404
Home Concrete Supply v. Unites States,LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012), 698
Homebuilders Ass’n v. Scottsdale, 925P.2d 1359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996),242
Hubbard v. United, 514 U.S. 695(1995), 224
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States,295 U.S. 602 (1935), 607, 609, 615
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516(1884), 498
Illinois National Guard v. Federal LaborRelations Authority, 854 F.2d 1396(D.C. Cir. 1988), 664
INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983),20, 21, 27, 53, 345, 582
INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421(1987), 90, 91
In re Adamo, 619 F.2d 216(2d Cir.1980), 213
In re Amy, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012),183
In re Compensation of Williams, 635P.2d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 1981), 247
In re Idalski, 123 B.R. 222 (Bankr. E.D.Mich. 1991), 420
In re Matter of Sinclair, 870 F.2d 1340(7th Cir. 1989), 420
In re Littlefield, 851 P.2d 42 (Cal.1993), 71
In re Macke International Trade, Inc.,370 B.R. 236 (9th Cir. 2007), 233
J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426(1964), 550, 552, 555
J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. UnitedStates, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), 577,580
Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Educa-tion, 544 U.S. 167 (2005), 550
Jensen v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern RailwayCo., 182 N.E.2d 211 (Ill. 1962), 264
Jersey City v. State Board of Tax Ap-peals, 43 A.2d 799 (N.J. Sup. Ct.1945), 248
Jewell v. United States, 532 F.2d 697(9th Cir. 1976), 493
Keller v. Superior Court, 470 P.2d 617(Cal. 1970), 507
Kentucky Off-Track Betting, Inc. v.McBurney, 993 S.W.2d 946 (Ky.1999), 463
Kentucky v. Plowman, 86 S.W.3d 47(Ky. 2002), 173, 279, 336
TABLE OF CASES xxiii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxiii
Keup v. Wisconsin Department of Health& Family Services, 675 N.W.2d 755(Wis. 2004), 100
Keystone Ins. Co. v. Houghton, 863 F.2d1125 (3d Cir. 1988), 512
King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015),23, 40, 41, 87, 88, 104, 112, 131,197, 202, 214, 486, 676, 677, 678
King v. United States, 351 F.3d 859 (8thCir. 2003), 41, 88, 493, 678
Kirby v. United States, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.)482 (1868), 195
Klein v. United States, 80 U.S. 128(1871), 22, 49
Knebel v. Hein, 429 U.S. 288 (1977), 327Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh,
543 U.S. 50 (2004), 428Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S.
214 (1944), 622Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848(1984), 104
Koshkonong v. Burton, 104 U.S. 668(1881), 20
Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S.244 (1994), 512
Landry v. Federal Deposit InsuranceCorp., 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.2000), 606, 612, 619
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),75, 80, 386
Laws v. United States, 163 U.S. 258(1896), 317, 607
Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158(2014), 663
LeFever v. State, 877 P.2d 1298 (AlaskaCt. App. 1994), 130, 131, 137
Lemon v. United States, 564 A.2d 1368(D.C. 1989), 71
Leo Sheep Co. v. Unites States, 440 U.S.668 (1979), 109
People v. Leroy, 828 N.E.2d 786 (Ill.App. Ct. 2005), 516
Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 425(1799), 235
Levin v. United States, 133 F. Supp. 88(D. Colo. 1953), 224
Liparota v. United States, 471 U. S. 419(1985), 38
Lipscomb v. State Board of Higher Edu-cation, 753 P.2d 939 (Or. 1988), 71
Lizardo v. United States, 445 F.3d 73(1st Cir. 2006), 493
Lorrillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978),396
Locke v. United States, 471 U.S. 84(1985), 210
Louk v. Cormier, 622 S.E.2d 788 (W.Va. 2005), 351
Lynch v. State, 145 P.2d 265 (Wash.1944), 71
Maddox v. Florida, 862 So. 2d 783 (Fla.Dist. Ct. App. 2003), 150, 370
Manager v. Board of State Medical Ex-aminers, 45 A. 891 (Md. Ct. App.1900), 229
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch)137 (1803), 44, 349, 499, 598, 634,640, 683
Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. 436 U.S. 307(1978), 575
Marshall v. United States, 908 F.2d1312 (7th Cir. 1990), 216, 500, 585,634
Massachusetts v. Smith, 728 N.E.2d 272(Mass. 2000), 258
Massey v. Boulden, [2003] 2 All ER 87,427
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319(1976), 574
Mayer v. Spanel Int’l Ltd., 51 F.3d 670(7th Cir. 1995), 296
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education& Research v. United States, 562 U.S.44 (2011), 664
Mayor of Lansing v. Michigan PublicService Commission, 680 N.W.2d840 (Mich. 2004), 184, 195
McClung v. Employment DevelopmentDepartment, 99 P.3d 1015 (Cal.2004), 513
McClellan v. United States, 165 F.3d 535(7th Cir. 1999), 493
xxiv TABLE OF CASES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxiv
McConnel v. United States, 464 F.3d1152 (10th Cir. 2006), 493
McKinney v. Robbins, 892 S.W.2d 502(Ark. 1995), 279, 287
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v.American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,512 U.S. 218 (1994), 151
McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350(1987), 39, 511
McRae v. United States, 702 F. 3d 806(CA5 2012), 37
Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S.218 (2001), 662, 665, 667, 668, 695
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008),24
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470(1996), 387, 531
Michigan v. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 135 S. Ct. 2699 (2015)*
Michigan v. Schaeffer, 703 N.W.2d 774(Mich. 2005), 520
Michigan Avenue National Bank v.County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493(2000), 324
Mississippi Poultry Ass’n, Inc. v. Madi-gan, 992 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1993),152, 446
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361(1989), 26, 564
Modern Muzzleloading, Inc. v. Magaw,18 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 1998), 511
Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807(1980), 257, 410
Montana Wilderness Ass’n v. U.S. For-est Service, 655 F.2d 951 (9th Cir.1981), 69
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988),604, 607-609
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535(1974), 380, 386
Moser v. United States, 18 F.3d 469 (7thCir. 1994), 225
Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103(1990), 510
Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass’n v.State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983), 648
Muller v. State, 829 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.Ct. Crim. App. 1992), 129
Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S.(2 Cranch) 64 (1804), 214, 501
Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Im-provement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.)272 (1855), 584
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S.125 (1998), 163
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52(1926), 23, 607, 609, 614, 615
Natal v. United States, 2014 U. S. Dist.LEXIS 108852 (Conn., Aug. 7,2014), 37
National Cable & TelecommunicationsAss’n v. Brand X Internet Service,545 U.S. 967 (2005), 647, 687, 691,697, 700, 702, 703, 704, 705
National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston& Maine Corp., 503 U.S. 407(1992), 152
NationsBank of North Carolina. v. Vari-able Annuity Life Insurance Co., 513U.S. 251 (1995), 665
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691(1987), 576
Nix v. Heddon, 149 U.S. 304 (1893),151
Nixon v. Administrator of General Serv-ices, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), 26, 34
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731(1982), 26
NLRB v. Catholic Bishop, 440 U.S. 490(1979), 215, 417, 500
NLRB v. Hearst Publication, Inc., 322U.S. 111 (1944), 636
NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550(2014), 620
Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v.Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50(1982), 25
Ober United Travel Agency, Inc. v. U.S.Department of Labor, 135 F.3d 822(D.C. Cir. 1998), 543
Office of Personnel Management v. Rich-mond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990), 213
TABLE OF CASES xxv
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxv
Office Planning Group, Inc. v. Baraga-Houghton-Keweenaw Child Develop-ment Board, 697 N.W.2d 871 (Mich.2005), 462
O’Hara v. Luchenbach Steamship Co.,269 U.S. 364 (1926), 173
Ohio Division of Wildlife v. Clifton,692 N.E.2d 253 (Ohio Mun Ct.1997), 458
O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc.,340 U.S. 504 (1951), 636
One 1990 Chevrolet Pickup v. State, 857P.2d 44 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993), 235
Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc., 180P.2d 321 (Cal. 1947), 558
O’Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hosp., 874A.2d 179 (R.I. 2005), 548
Oxygenated Fuels Ass’n, Inc. v. Davis,331 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2003), 499
Overseas Education Ass’n, Inc., v. Fed-eral Labor Relations Authority, 876F.2d 960 (D.C. Cir. 1989), 418
Pabon-Cruz v. United States, 391 F.3d86 (2d Cir. 2004), 418
Palm Beach County Canvassing Board v.Harris, 772 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 2000),375, 498
Palmer v. United States, 3 Wheat 610(1818), 230
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S.388 (1935), 578, 581
Paternostro v. United States, 311 F.2d298 (5th Cir. 1962), 225
Patrie v. Area Coop. Education Service,37 Conn. L. Rptr. 470 (Conn.Super. Ct. 2004), 152
PDK Labs. Inc. v. DEA, 362 F.3d 786(D.C. Cir. 2004), 183
Peters v. State, 263 Wis.2d 475 (2003),253
Peterson v. Midwest Security InsuranceCo., 636 N.W.2d 727 (Wis. 2001),230
Phillips v. State, 560 S.E.2d 852 (N.C.Ct. App. 2002), 311
Phoenix Control Systems, Inc. v. Insur-ance Co. of North America, 769 P.2d463 (Az. 1990), 236
Pileri Indus., Inc. v. Consolidated Indus-tries, Inc., 740 So. 2d 1108 (Ala. Civ.App. 1999), 403
Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S.211 (1995), 22, 49
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896),468
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486(1969), 53
Powell v. People, 217 Ill.2d 123 (2005),511
Public Citizen v. DOJ, 491 U.S. 440(1989), 197, 198, 205
Puche v. United States, 350 F.3d 1137(11th Cir. 2003), 493
Pulkkinen v. Pulkkinen, 127 So.3d 738(Fl. Ct. App. 2013), 388
Puryear v. State, 228 S.E.2d 536 (N.C.1976), 306
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amal-gamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065(2012), 375
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715(2006), 522
Rapaport v. U.S. Department of theTreasury, 59 F.3d 212 (D.C. Cir.1995), 664
Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995), 510,665
Reporters Community for Freedom ofthe Press v. U.S. Department of Jus-tice, 816 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1987),664
Republic of Ecusdor v. Mackay, 12-15572, 2014 WL 341060 (9th Cir.Jan. 31, 2014), 183
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 594 S.E.2d 1(N.C. 1994), 258
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312(2008), 531
Regina v. Ojibway, 193, 342Robbins v. Chronister, 402 F.3d 1047
(10th Cir. 2005), 197
xxvi TABLE OF CASES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxvi
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782N.W.2d 171 (2010), 240, 264
Rodriguez-Rios v. United States, 14 F.3d1040 (5th Cir. 1994), 224, 225
Rogers v. Tennessee, 378 U.S. 347(2001), 521
Rogers v. Yonce, 2008 WL 2853207(N.D. Okla, July 21, 2008), 387
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996),71, 72
Rose v. United States, 570 F.2d 1358(9th Cir. 1978), 225
Ruhe v. United States, 191 F.3d 376 (4thCir. 1999), 493
S.D. Education Ass’n v. Barnett, 582N.W.2d 386 (S.D. 1998), 492
Salim v. United States, 287 F. Supp. 2d250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 413
San Jose v. Office of the Commissioner ofBaseball, 776 F.3d 686 (9th Cir.2015), 475
Sanchez v. United States, 2008 WL1926701 at (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30,2008), 498
Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507(2008), 509
Scheer v. United States, 729 F.2d 164(2nd Cir. 1984), 210
Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44(1996), 499
See v. Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967), 575Shaw v. Merchants’ National Bank, 101
U.S. (11 Otto) 557 (1879), 542Shine v. Shine, 802 F.2d 583 (1st Cir.
1986), 213Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment,Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), 303
Sims v. Adoption Alliance, 922 S.W.2d213 (Tx. Ct. App. 1996), 356
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134(1944), 637, 644, 667, 668
Smith v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516 (Fed. Cir.1994), 543
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), 515Smith v. Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005),
258, 259, 396
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223(1993), 92, 154, 164, 165, 168, 179,713
Snapp v. Unlimited Concepts, Inc., 208F.3d 928 (11th Cir. 2000), 558
Spriggs v. People, 224 Cal. App. 4th 150(2014), 710
Spring Hill Capital Partners, LLC, et al.v. SEC, 1 :15-cv-04542, ECF No. 24(S.D.N.Y June 29, 2015), 619
St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d510 (Ky. 2004), 174
Stark v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 190(D. Md. 1955), 225
State Ethics Commission v. Evans, 855A.2d 364 (Md. 2004), 513
Stebbens v. Wells, 2001 WL 1255079(R.I. Super. Ct. 2001), 279
Stephan v. United States, 319 U.S. 423(1943), 310
Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594(2011), 22, 585
Stevens v. United States, 559 U.S. 460(2010), 39, 188, 259, 511, 630
Stiens v. Fire & Police Pension Ass’n,684 P.2d 180 (Colo. 1984), 351
Stilwell v. SEC, No. 1:14-cv-07931(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2014), 619
Stryker Corp. v. Director, Division ofTaxation, 773 A.2d 674 (N.J. 2001),270
Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat 122(1819), 197
Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617(1990), 482, 487
Superior Court v. People ex rel. Lungren,926 P.2d 1042 (Cal. 1996), 86
Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2009), 242
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527U.S. 471 (1999), 327, 396
Tabor v. United States, 788 F.2d 714(11th Cir. 1986), 225
Taylor v. Inhabitants of Town of Cari-bou, 67 A.2 (Me. 1907), 227
TABLE OF CASES xxvii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxvii
Taylor v. United States, 907 F.2d 801(8th Cir. 1990), 224, 225
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437U.S. 153 (1978), 385, 594
Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. UnitedStates, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), 511
Tilton v. SEC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS85015 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015),573, 619
Timbervest, LLC v. SEC, 2015 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 132082 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4,2015), 573
Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346U.S. 356 (1953), 470, 471
Touche Ross & Co. v. Remington, 442U.S. 560 (1979), 551
Travelscape, LLC v. South Carolina De-partment of Revenue, 705 S.E.2d 28(2011), 3, 86, 264
U.S. National Bank of Oregon v. Inde-pendent Insurance Agents of America,Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (1993), 210, 227,311
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton, 514U.S. 779 (1995), 53
United States v. American TruckingAss’ns, Inc., 310 U.S. 534 (1940),196, 452
United States v. Board of Commissionerof Sheiffeld, 435 U.S. 110 (1978), 492
United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S.193 (1979), 103, 417, 418, 431
USDA v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973),80
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA,134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014), 197
Van Horn v. William Blanchard Co.,438 A.2d 552 (N.J. 1981), 242, 397
Van Woerden v. State, 967 P.2d 14(Wash. Ct. App. 1998), 279
Vasquez v. People, 631 N.W.2d 711(Mich. 2001), 269
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.Natural Resource Defense Council,Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978), 570
In re Virtual Network Service Corp., 98B.R. 343 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989),418
Vowell v. United States, 9 U.S. (5Cranch) 368 (1810), 634
Wagner Seed Co. v. Bush, 946 F.2d 918(D.C. Cir. 1991), 663
Walsh v. People, 859 N.Y.S.2d 906(Crim. Ct. 2008), 231
Warren v. Mayor & Aldermen ofCharlestown, 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 84(1854), 349
Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74(2007), 159, 163
Wells v. United States, 519 U.S. 482(1997), 510
Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns,Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001), 288, 579
Whittner v. State, 492 S.E.2d 777 (S.C.1977), 511
Wiener v. United States, 96 F.3d 35 (2dCir. 1996), 225, 615
Williams v. Commonwealth, 733 S.E.2d124 (Va. 2012), 183
Williams v. Kentucky, 829 S.W.2d 942(Ky. Ct. App. 1992), 376
Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier,501 U.S. 597 (1991), 91, 428
Wooten v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. App.4th 422 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2001),498, 506
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009),387, 392, 531
X-Citement Video, Inc. v. United States,513 U.S. 64 (1994), 197
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,343 U.S. 579 (1952), 21, 24, 31, 35,622
Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074(2015), 11, 36, 88, 112, 288, 324
Zerbe v. State, 583 P.2d 845 (Alaska1978), 396
Zuni Public School District v. Depart-ment of Education, 550 U.S. 81(2007), 650
xxviii TABLE OF CASES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxviii
Table of Secondary Authorities
Publications (sorted by author)
Robert A. Anthony, Which Agency Interpretations Should Bind Citizens & the Courts?,7 Yale J. on Reg. 1 (1990)
Aharon Barak, Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democ-racy, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 16 (2002)
Kent Barnett, Resolving the ALJ Quandary, 66 Vand. L. Rev. 797, 812 (2013)
Michael J. Bean & Melanie J. Rowland, The Evolution of National WildlifeLaw (1997)
Bernard Bell, “No More Vehicles in the Park”: Reviving the Hart-Fuller Debate to In-troduce Statutory Construction, 48 J. Legal Education 88, (1998) (citing H.L.A.Hart, Positivism & the Separation of Law & Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 607(1958); Lon L. Fuller, Positivism & Fidelity to Law— A Reply to Professor Hart,71 Harv. L. Rev. 630, 663 (1958))
Ronald B. Brown & Sharon J. Brown, Statutory Interpretation: The Searchfor Legislative Intent (2d ed. 2011
Lisa Schultz Bressman, How Mead Has Muddled Judicial Review of Agency Action, 58Vand. L. Rev. 1443 (2005)
Stephen Breyer, On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes, 65 S. Cal.L. Rev. 845 (1992)
James J. Brudney & Corey Ditsler, Canons of Construction & the Elusive Search forNeutral Reasoning, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2005)
Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Hierarchically Variable Deference to Agency Interpretations,89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 728 (2013)
Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes (1985)
Carol Chomsky, Unlocking the Mysteries of Holy Trinity: Spirit, Letter, & History inStatutory Interpretation, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 901 (2000)
Barbara H. Craig, Chadha: The Story of an Epic Constitutional Struggle25 (1988)
Jack Davies, Legislative Law & Process in a Nutshell (3d ed. 2007)
A. Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze, in The Complete Sherlock Holmes (1927)
Frank H. Easterbrook, Statutes’ Domains, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 533 (1983)
xxix
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxix
Frank H. Easterbrook, What Does Legislative History Tell Us?, 66 Chi.-Kent L. Rev.441 (1990)
William Eskridge, Jr. et al., Cases & Materials on Legislation: Statutes &the Creation of Public Policy (3d ed. 2001)
William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Lauren E. Baer, The Continuum of Deference: SupremeCourt Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan,96 Geo L.J. 1083(2008)
William Eskridge, Dynamic Statutory Interpretation, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1479 (1987)
William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Introduction to Henry M. Hart,Jr. & Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process (1994) 1374 (William N. Eskridge,Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, eds., 1994)
William N. Eskridge, Jr. et Al., Legislation & Statutory Interpretation (3d2006)
William Eskridge, The New Textualism, 37 UCLA L. Rev. 621 (1990)
Owen Fiss, David J. Brewer: The Judge as Missionary, in The Fields & the Law (1986)
Felix Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527(1947)
Lon L. Fuller, The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 616 (1949)
William F. Funk, et al., Administrative Procedure & Practice: Problems &CASES (5th 2014)
Bryan A. Garner, How Nuanced is Justice Scalia’s Judicial Philosophy? An Exchange(September 10, 2012)
Todd Garvey, Cong. Research Service, RL33667, Presidential Signing State-ments: Constitutional & Institutional Implications (2012)
Abbe R. Gluck & Lisa Schultz Bressman, Statutory Interpretation from the Inside—An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, & the Canons: Part I.65 Stan. L. Rev. 901 (2013)
Henry Hart & Albert Sachs, The Legal Process 1378 (William N. Eskridge, Jr.& Philip P. Frickey eds., 1994)
Oliver W. Holmes, The Theory of Legal Interpretation, 12 Harv. L. Rev. 417 (1899)
J. Gordon Hylton, The Curt Flood Act: Why Baseball’s Antitrust Exemption Still Survives,9 Marq. Sports L.J. 391 (1999)
Linda D. Jellum, But that is Absurd! Why Specific Absurdity Undermines Textualism,76 Brooklyn L. Rev. 917 (2011)
Linda D. Jellum, Chevron’s Demise: A Survey of Chevron from Infancy to Senescence,59 Admin. L. Rev. 725 (2007)
Linda D. Jellum, Dodging the Taxman: Why Treasury’s Anti-Abuse Regulation is Un-constitutional, 70 Miami L. Rev. 152 (2015)
Linda D. Jellum, Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: Reconciling Brown v. Gardner’s Pre-sumption That Interpretive Doubt Be Resolved In Veterans’ Favor With Chevron,61 Am. U. L. Rev. 59 (2011)
xxx TABLE OF SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxx
Linda D. Jellum, The Impact of the Rise & Fall of Chevron on the Executive’s Power toMake & Interpret Law, 44 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 141 (2012)
Linda D. Jellum, “Which is to be Master,” the Judiciary or the Legislature? When Statu-tory Directives Violate Separation of Powers, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 837 (2009)
Fred Kameny, Are Inseverability Clauses Constitutional?, 68 Alb. L. Rev. 997 (2005)
John M. Kernochan, Statutory Interpretation: An Outline of Method, 3 DalhousieL.J. 333 (1976)
Orin S. Kerr, Shedding Light on Chevron: An Empirical Study of the Chevron Doctrinein the United States Courts of Appeals, 15 Yale J. Reg. 1 (1998)
Ronald J. Krotoszynski, On the Danger of Wearing Two Hats: Mistretta & MorrisonRevisited, 38 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 417 (1997)
Gary Lawson, Mostly Unconstitutional: The Case Against Precedent Revisited, 5 AveMaria L. Rev. 1(2007)
Hillel Y. Levin, Everything I need to Know About Statutory Interpretation I learnedby the Time I was Nine, 12 The Green Bag 357 (2009)
Ronald M. Levin, The Anatomy of Chevron: Step Two Reconsidered, 72 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 1253 (1997)
Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision & the Rules of Cannonabout How Statutes are to be Construed, 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395 (1949)
Jeffrey Lubbers, “If It Didn’t Exist, It Would Have to Be Invented”— Reviving the Ad-ministrative Conference, 30 Ariz. St. L.J. 147 (1998)
Bradford C. Mank, Legal Context: Reading Statutes in Light of Prevailing LegalPrecedent, 34 Ariz. St. L.J. 815 (2002)
John F. Manning, Clear Statement Rules & the Constitution, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 101(2010)
John F. Manning, Federalism & the Generality Problem in Constitutional Interpretation,122 Harv. L. Rev. 2004 (2009)
Peter B. McCutchen, Mistakes, Precedent, & The Rise of the Administrative State: Towarda Constitutional Theory of the Second Best, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (1994)
Thomas W. Merrill, Textualism & the Future of the Chevron Doctrine, 72 Wash. U.L.Q. 351 (1994)
Erica Newland, Note, Executive Orders in Court, 124 Yale L.J. 2026
Lars Noah, The Executive Line Item Veto & the Judicial Power to Sever: What’s TheDifference?, 56 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 235 (1999)
Richard Posner, How Nuanced is Justice Scalia’s Judicial Philosophy? An Exchange (Sep-tember 10, 2012)
Richard A. Posner, Statutory Interpretation— In the Classroom & the Courtroom, 50U. Chi. L. Rev. 800 (1983)
Roscoe Pound, Spurious Interpretation, 7 Colum. L. Rev. 379 (1907)
Martin H. Redish & Elizabeth J. Cisar, “If Angels Were to Govern”: The Need for Prag-matic Formalism in Separation of Powers Theory, 41 Duke L.J. 449 (1991)
TABLE OF SECONDARY AUTHORITIES xxxi
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxi
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv. L.Rev. 2085 (2002)
Jeremy L. Ross, A Rule of Last Resort: A History of the Doctrine of the Last Antecedentin the United State Supreme Court, 39 Southwestern L.R. 325 (2010)
Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts & the Law (1987)
Antonin Scalia, Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis, 40 Case W. Res.L. Rev. 581 (1990)
Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of LegalTexts (2012)
Jane S. Schacter, The Pursuit of “Popular Intent”: Interpretive Dilemmas in DirectDemocracy, 105 Yale L.J. 107 (1995)
Mark Seidenfeld, A Syncopated Chevron: Emphasizing Reasoned Decision-Making inReviewing Agency Interpretations of Statutes, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 83 (1994)
David L. Shapiro, Continuity & Change in Statutory Interpretation, 67 N.Y.U. L. Rev.921 (1992)
Michael D. Shumsky, Severability, Inseverability, & the Rule of Law, 41 Harv. J. onLegis. 227 (2004)
Lawrence M. Solan, The Language of Statutes (2010)
Kevin M. Stack, The Statutory President, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 539 (2005).
Glen Staszewski, Avoiding Absurdity, 81 Ind. L.J. 1001 (2006)
William Stoebuck, Reception of English Common Law in the American Colonies, 10Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 393 (1968)
Peter L. Strauss, An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the UnitedStates (2d. ed. 2002)
Peter L. Strauss, The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers & TheFourth Branch, 84 Colum L. Rev. 573 (1984)
Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 Va. L. Rev. 187 (2006)
Sutherland Statutes & Statutory Construction (7th ed. 2009 Norman Singered.)
Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (3rd ed.)
Lynne Truss, Eats, Shoots & Leaves The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punc-tuation (2003)
Stefan Vogenauer, A Retreat from Pepper v. Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn, 25 OxfordJ. Leg. Studies 629-674 (2005)
John M. Walker, Judicial Tendencies in Statutory Construction: Differing Views on theRole of the Judge, 58 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 203 (2001)
Louise Weinberg, Dred Scott & the Crisis of 1860, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 97 (2007)
Mary Whisner, What’s in a Statute Name?, 97 Law Libr. J. 169 (2005)
xxxii TABLE OF SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxii
Preface
Leg/ Reg courses, as they are colloquially known, are multiplying as law schoolsincorporate them into the first year required curriculum. The practice of law todayinvolves statutory interpretation and regulatory work. Hence, students need to knowboth subjects, and leg/ reg courses are thus critically important.
However, law professors often struggle to identify what topics within these threeareas (legislative process, interpretation, and administrative law) to cover and howdeeply to cover those they do select. At this point in a student’s education, too muchinformation distracts students from what they need to know to become better students,but two little leaves students without the background they need to be successful asstudents and, ultimately, as lawyers. I have chosen to focus more attention on inter-pretation and agencies and less on the legislative process, because I believe more ofour graduates will work in these areas. Of the two, I sink deeper into interpretationbecause every lawyer will encounter this topic and it is easier to grasp in the first year,while not all of them will interact with agencies, particularly federal agencies.
Hence, this text is organized as follows. Chapter 1 introduces the legislative andinterpretive processes with the well-known ambulances in the park hypothetical.Chapter 2 explains separation of powers, which underlies statutory interpretationand the administrative state. Chapter 3 describes the legislative process and legalprocess theories. Chapter 4 explores the theories of, or approaches to, statutory in-terpretation and the sources of meaning: intrinsic sources, extrinsic sources, and pol-icy-based sources. The next eleven chapters are organized around these sources. Thus,Chapters 5-9 cover the intrinsic sources, including the words, grammar, punctuation,linguistic canons, and statutory components. Chapters 10-13 cover the extrinsicsources, including conflicting statutes, legislative history, statutory purpose, legislativeacquiescence, and post enactment activities. Chapters 14-15 cover the policy basedsources, including both constitutional ones, such as the rule of lenity, and prudentialones, such as the remedial canon. Chapters 16-19 turn to agencies, what they are,why they regulate, how they regulate, and what deference they receive when they doregulate. Finally, Chapter 20 provides a brief review and organizational approach tothe course (if you are a student reading this preface, you might wish to glance atChapter 20 before you get started).
Within each chapter, I have tried to do a number of things. First, I begin each sec-tion by explaining the relevant canons in detail; I do not use cases to explain thebasics. Instead, I include the highly edited cases to explore the canons and conceptsin more detail. Many of the cases illustrate instances in which the court did not apply
xxxiii
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxiii
the canons or concepts accurately. It can be frustrating for students to read cases inwhich the judges got it wrong. But doing so helps students learn how to argue andcritique. Lawyering, after all, is about learning how to make convincing argumentsof your own while fairly criticizing those of your opponent. Statutory interpretationis no different. Lawyers do not want to know what a statute means as much as theywant to know how to convince a judge that the statute means what their client saysit means. Hence, critiquing judicial opinions is valuable and educational.
Unlike most textbooks, I have identified the justices who joined the majority anddissenting opinions in every Supreme Court case and many lower court opinions.These cases can make for strange bedfellows; it can be interesting to see when judgesabandon their approach to interpretation or separation of powers to join an opinionthat is more consistent with their political views or less consistent with them. Theagency deference cases are particularly relevant here.
Like most textbooks, I have removed extraneous information using ellipses, andI have removed citations without any reference to keep clutter at a minimum. Whilelawyers do not have the luxury of having cases edited for them in this way, and forthis reason some professors prefer less edited cases, at this early stage of student learn-ing I prefer to help students swim in the relevant immediately without forcing themto first drown in the irrelevant.
At the end of every case, I have included notes and focused questions (Points forDiscussion) to help students prepare the case for class discussion. For example, forcases involving interpretation issues, I suggest to students that they always ask them-selves the following three questions: (1) What is the language at issue; (2) what doeseach party want that language to mean; and (3) how does each judge interpret thatlanguage and why? In answering that third question, it can be helpful to ask further,(a) what intrinsic sources did the judge consider or fail to consider; (b) what extrinsicsources did the judge consider or fail to consider; (c) what policy-based sources didthe judge consider or fail to consider.
Finally, at the end of every chapter and sometimes at the end of a section, I haveincluded problems that address one or more topics in the chapter. The problems areoptional and can be assigned for out of class work or even review, if preferred. Oneof the most important skills that students learn by tackling the problems is to identifythe relevant language or section of a law. When students simply read cases, the judgesdo this important work for them. But judges will not be pointing the way when ourstudents practice. Hence, the problems are an important way to develop this importantskill. The problems vary in their complexity, so judicious use is advised.
I have included a few additional things. First, in the appendices, I included a verysimple sample bill (both the original house bill and the companion senate bill) andsome of the legislative history for this bill. The bill was never enacted, so it never be-came an act, but it is instructive for students to see the differences between a bill anda statute (codified sections of an act). I have also included a glossary. Words that areincluded in the glossary are italicized in the text the first time they appear.
xxxiv PREFACE
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxiv
I look forward to hearing from you regarding ways to improve this text for thenext edition. I particularly love to hear about the wonderful local cases you find. Toomany of these textbooks are overly focused on Supreme Court cases, as if no othercourts are interpreting statutes. Yet state case are often more accessible and tend tobe more interesting (see Ohio Division of Wildlife v. Clifton, 692 N.E.2d 253 (OhioMun. Ct. 1997) in Chapter 12). Indeed, some of these cases were contributed by myformer students.
In closing, I note that this book would not have been possible without the help ofmany. First, I would like to thank the Mercer Law Students from my 2015 course,who served as guinea pigs for this project and never complained. Additionally, WhitCameron ’16 and Joshua Pico ’17 were wonderful research assistants. The text is betterfor their help. I appreciate the financial support Mercer Law School provided to maketheir help available. Also, David Pope, Keith Sipe, Linda Lacy, and Grace Pledgerprovided much needed support to help make this text a reality.
Finally, I would not be nearly as productive in life without my husband, Lee, whounderstands me when I say, “Git yer arse in the truck!”
Linda Jellum Hilton Head Island, SCJune 2016
PREFACE xxxv
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxv
jellum leg proc 00 f2 7/12/16 9:21 AM Page xxxvi