understanding whether the statute includes foreign courts or limits its scope to American courts. Does a naturalist who tells us “all the beavers are out swimming” mean to include those beavers just born? Does a friend who says “all bicycle shops carry water bottles” mean to include secondhand bicycle shops? Context revealing a speaker’s
purposes
, not a dictionary that explains a word’s meaning, provides the necessary help here. Sam’s mother tells him, “Go to the store and buy some ice cream, flour, fruit, and anything else you want.” It is context, not a dictionary, that will help us learn whether Sam’s mother has given him permission to buy fifteen comic books. 5
Now reconsider the phrase in our example, “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” We can be certain that the word “any” here does not refer to any other law enforcement officer in the universe. It does not refer, say, to a German law enforcement officer. Gazing however thoughtfully at the words or consulting a dictionary will not help us discover
which
law enforcement officers Congress intended the phrase to cover. We must look further. Who wrote the words? And we must look to the purpose. Why did they write them?
In this case, it turned out that the statute’s drafters drew the language from a similar exemption found in English law. English law limited its exemption to a small subset of all law enforcement officers. Moreover, it was difficult to determine why, in the context of a statute that expanded citizen remedies, Congress would have wanted to limit so severely an injured person’s right to recover. For these and other reasonsrelated to Congress’s purposes, I would have interpreted the exempting phrase to refer only to those law enforcement officers who performed tasks related to customs and excise duties. 6
I NTERPRETATION B ASED ON P URPOSES AND C ONSEQUENCES
N OW LET US consider an approach that relies more heavily on purposes and consequences. To determine a provision’s purpose, the judge looks for the problem that Congress enacted the statute to resolve and asks how Congress expected the particular statutory words in question to help resolve that problem. The judge also examines the likely consequences of a proposed interpretation, asking whether they are more likely to further than to hinder achievement of the provision’s purpose. In doing so, a judge may examine a wide range of relevant legislative materials. Furthermore, the judge can try to determine a particular provision’s purpose even if no one in Congress said anything or even thought about the matter. In that case the judge (sometimes describing what he does in terms of the purpose of a hypothetical “reasonable legislator”) will determine that hypothetical purpose in order to increase the likelihood that the Court’s interpretation will further the more general purposes of the statute that Congress enacted.
An example based on an actual case will show how courts might use purposes and consequences in practice. A federal statute gives disabled children the right to a “free appropriate public education.” Pearl and Theodore Murphy have a son, Joseph, who suffers from severe learning disabilities. In September 1997 the Murphys, after receiving a specialist’s report that Joseph had a “near total incapacity to process language,” decided that the public school district had failed to provide him with the statutorily required “appropriate education.” The Murphys thought the school district should not have placed Joseph in classes with nondisabled students. 7
The statute provides that parents who disagree with a school district’s plan for educating their disabled child can contest the plan before state administrative officials. The Murphys did so. The statehearing examiner and an appellate administrator both eventually agreed that the Murphys were right and the school district should pay the cost of
purposes
, not a dictionary that explains a word’s meaning, provides the necessary help here. Sam’s mother tells him, “Go to the store and buy some ice cream, flour, fruit, and anything else you want.” It is context, not a dictionary, that will help us learn whether Sam’s mother has given him permission to buy fifteen comic books. 5
Now reconsider the phrase in our example, “any officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer.” We can be certain that the word “any” here does not refer to any other law enforcement officer in the universe. It does not refer, say, to a German law enforcement officer. Gazing however thoughtfully at the words or consulting a dictionary will not help us discover
which
law enforcement officers Congress intended the phrase to cover. We must look further. Who wrote the words? And we must look to the purpose. Why did they write them?
In this case, it turned out that the statute’s drafters drew the language from a similar exemption found in English law. English law limited its exemption to a small subset of all law enforcement officers. Moreover, it was difficult to determine why, in the context of a statute that expanded citizen remedies, Congress would have wanted to limit so severely an injured person’s right to recover. For these and other reasonsrelated to Congress’s purposes, I would have interpreted the exempting phrase to refer only to those law enforcement officers who performed tasks related to customs and excise duties. 6
I NTERPRETATION B ASED ON P URPOSES AND C ONSEQUENCES
N OW LET US consider an approach that relies more heavily on purposes and consequences. To determine a provision’s purpose, the judge looks for the problem that Congress enacted the statute to resolve and asks how Congress expected the particular statutory words in question to help resolve that problem. The judge also examines the likely consequences of a proposed interpretation, asking whether they are more likely to further than to hinder achievement of the provision’s purpose. In doing so, a judge may examine a wide range of relevant legislative materials. Furthermore, the judge can try to determine a particular provision’s purpose even if no one in Congress said anything or even thought about the matter. In that case the judge (sometimes describing what he does in terms of the purpose of a hypothetical “reasonable legislator”) will determine that hypothetical purpose in order to increase the likelihood that the Court’s interpretation will further the more general purposes of the statute that Congress enacted.
An example based on an actual case will show how courts might use purposes and consequences in practice. A federal statute gives disabled children the right to a “free appropriate public education.” Pearl and Theodore Murphy have a son, Joseph, who suffers from severe learning disabilities. In September 1997 the Murphys, after receiving a specialist’s report that Joseph had a “near total incapacity to process language,” decided that the public school district had failed to provide him with the statutorily required “appropriate education.” The Murphys thought the school district should not have placed Joseph in classes with nondisabled students. 7
The statute provides that parents who disagree with a school district’s plan for educating their disabled child can contest the plan before state administrative officials. The Murphys did so. The statehearing examiner and an appellate administrator both eventually agreed that the Murphys were right and the school district should pay the cost of
Similar Books
