Statutory Interpretation in Admin Law

Statutory Interpretation

  • Statutory interpretation is how agencies interpret the statutes they implement.
  • It's relevant to administrative law because:
    • It informs the intelligible principle in the non-delegation doctrine.
    • It's relevant to Chevron analysis concerning congressional ambiguity.
    • It relates to whether Congress is being arbitrary.
    • It concerns permissible construction when agencies have discretion.
    • It deals with whether a statute commits something to an agency's discretion.
    • It concerns the plain meaning of a statute.
  • Words have inherent ambiguities, making interpretation important.

Legal Theory: Formalism vs. Realism

  • Legal Formalism:
    • Views law as logic or science.
    • Assumes courts behave logically.
    • Applies systematic formulas based on past court decisions to current facts.
    • Aims to predict court outcomes.
  • Legal Realism:
    • Views law as experience or prophecy.
    • Acknowledges that courts are influenced by psychology and biases.
    • Considers all evidence, including judges' minds and societal factors, to guess court actions.
    • All law is taking all of the evidence that you can, not just what is happening in the law, but what's happening in the judge's mind and what's happening in society in general and using that to guess what a court might do.

Approaches to Statutory Interpretation

Within Legal Formalism:

  • Textualism:
    • Prioritizes the words on the page (syntactical elements).
    • Policy and intent considered, but words are primary.
  • Originalism:
    • Prioritizes the words on the page and their meaning at the time of writing.

Within Legal Realism:

  • Purposivism:
    • Focuses on what the statute is trying to achieve.
    • Gives effect to the statute's purpose, even if the words are not perfectly aligned.

Exercise: Interpreting "Billie Jean"

  • Two performances of "Billie Jean" are compared:
    • Michael Jackson (author): upbeat, flashy performance.
    • Chris Cornell: somber, heartbreaking performance.
  • The lyrics of "Billie Jean" are about a paternity dispute, a sad theme.
  • Interpreting the performances:
    • Textualist: might see Chris Cornell as the textualist because his tone matches the lyrics' sadness. But Michael Jackson wrote the song, so doesn't he know better what the text says?
    • Originalist: Michael Jackson could be seen as the originalist, but we don't know how co-author Quincy Jones would perform it. Maybe he doesn't agree with Michael Jackson.
    • Purposivist: Is the purpose of the song just to make money and get people to dance or to break people's heart? Chris Cornell might be the purposivist in this case.
  • The point is to consider the costs, benefits, and risks of different interpretive approaches.

Considerations for Interpretation

  • Original Meaning:
    • Interpreting the Constitution according to the original meaning as set forth by the founders.
    • Cabins the authority of judges.
    • Limiting judicial discretion and control.
    • Concerns: Founders disagreed on many things (e.g., slavery, meaning of "equal"). The constitution was amended multiple times by different people with different views.

Canons of Construction

  • Give Meaning Canon: Every word in a statute must be given meaning; none can be skipped.
  • Common Usage/Plain Meaning: Words must be interpreted according to their normal, common meaning, not idiosyncratic ones.
  • Clear Statement Rule: Congress must clearly state changes to something important; courts won't interpret a massive change unless clearly stated.
  • Avoidance Doctrine: Courts will interpret a statute to avoid declaring it unconstitutional if possible.
  • Charming Betsy Canon: Courts will interpret a statute to avoid conflict with international law.
  • Rule of Lenity: Criminal statutes are interpreted leniently in favor of criminal defendants when there's ambiguity.
  • Fundamental Values: Statutes should not be interpreted contrary to fundamental values.
  • Deference: Agencies should have more expertise than the court.
  • Interpret Against the Drafter: Interpret against those who drafted the contract or legislation and in favor of those it's applied to.
  • Indian Canon: Resolve ambiguities in treaties or statutes with Native American tribes in their favor, interpreting against those taking away rights or property.

Historical Canons of Construction

  • Ejusdem Generis:
    • When a statute lists specific items, it's limited to that class of items.
    • Example: "vehicles, including cars, motorcycles, and trucks" limits it to terrestrial vehicles.
  • Noscitur a Sociis:
    • The meaning of a word is known from its associates.
    • Look at other definitions within the same statute to figure out what a word means.
  • Last Antecedent Rule:
    • Qualifying words or phrases refer only to the last antecedent.
    • Example: "doctors, nurses, and EMTs in hospitals" means "in hospitals" only applies to EMTs.
  • Specific Beats General: Specific provisions trump general ones in interpretation.
  • Later in Time: The most recent law trumps the earlier one when courts are interpreting statutes, if there's ambiguity.

Case Study: Clean Water Act

  • Purpose of the Clean Water Act:
    • Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
    • Eliminate discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985 (failed).
    • Recognize states' rights to prevent and reduce pollution.
  • Conflict: Eliminating pollutants vs. states' rights.
  • Key Terms:
    • Navigable waters: Defined as "waters of The United States".
  • Ambiguity: What does "navigable" mean? What are "waters of The United States"? The original intent of the wording has not been achieved and now we're stuck making hard determinations.
  • Cases:
    • Riverside Bayview: Initially, the court deferred to the agency (EPA, Army Corps of Engineers) under Chevron deference.
    • SWANK (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County): Court rejected the idea that small interstate ponds used by migratory birds were "navigable waters". The meaning of navigable has to mean something more than just birds land on it.
    • Reponos: The Supreme Court gives three opinions.
      • Facts: A parking lot with a drainage corner that turned into a pond/swamp connected to a navigable river via a canal. The owner wanted to fill it in, but the Army Corps of Engineers said it was a "navigable water".
        • Scalia's Opinion: Navigable waters are traditional navigable waters + relatively permanent tributaries + wetlands directly abutting those tributaries. There are traditional navigable waters that had boats on them from the beginning of our country.
        • Dissenting Opinion: Defer to the agency (Riverside Bayview).
        • Kennedy's Concurring Opinion: Navigable water is any water with a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water.
  • WOTUS Rule (Waters of The United States): Ongoing arguments about the interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Perfect example of ambiguity in a statute.