Legislative History
A court wants evidence of the legislature's considered understanding of a bill. It has a committee report and an isolated statement by one legislator during floor debate. Which source would generally reveive greater weight?
Committee report
The Supreme Court interprets a statute in 2015. Congress knows about the interpretation but leaves the statute unchanged for the next decade. What doctrine might treat Congress's failure to act as acceptance of that interpretation? Acquiescence Rule or In Pari Materia
Acquiescence rule
Two statutes address closely related subjects and use the same phrase. A court interprets one statute using the established meaning of that phrase in the other.
Acquiescence or In pari materia
In pari materia
Statute A and Statute B both regulate consumer privacy and use the undefined phrase “personal information.” Courts have interpreted the phrase in Statute A to include biometric information. Should a court interpreting Statute B consider that interpretation?
Likely yes.
Because the statutes address closely related subject matter and use the same language, in pari materia may support interpreting them consistently.
During floor debate, the sponsor of a bill says, "This statute absolutely does not apply to universities." The enacted statute itself contains no university exception. What is the strongest reason for a court to be cautious about relying on the statement?
it only reflects the view of one legislator or legislative history can be manipulated
It reflects the view of one legislator, not necessarily the intent of the legislature as a whole.
Congress reenacts statutory language without materially changing it after courts have consistently interpreted that language a particular way. What inference might a court draw?
Congress adopted the interpretation/accepted the existing interpretation OR they were leaving it to the courts to interpret
Congress adopted or accepted the existing interpretation.
Congress considers an amendment expressly excluding AI-generated communications from a statute but rejects the amedment. A court later considers whether the existing statute excludes those communications. Does this reflect the rejected proposal rule or "The Dog That Did Not Bark"
Rejected proposal rule
Two federal statutes use the exact same phrase. One governs venue and the other governs subject-matter jurisdiction. A party argues that the phrase must mean the same thing in both statutes. Persuasive or not?
Not necessarily.
Similar language alone isn't enough - the statutes serve different purposes.
A committee report strongly supports one interpretation of a statute. Later, it is discovered that most committee members did not write the report, did not vote on it, and may not have read it. What criticism of legislative history does this illustrate?
Legislative history may not actually represent the collective intent of the legislature.
Congress makes several major amendments to a statute but says nothing about changing a longstanding and well-known interpretation of one provision. A court reasons that Congress likely would have spoken clearly if it intended such a significant change. What concept does this reasoning resemble?
The "Dog That Did Not Bark" canon
Congress copies language from an older statute that courts have interpreted consistently for decades. A court presumes Congress also borrowed the established meaning of those words.
The “old soil” principle / borrowing established statutory meaning.
The Supreme Court holds that “employee” includes unpaid interns. Five years later, Congress considers an amendment expressly stating that “employee includes unpaid interns” but rejects it. Does the rejection prove unpaid interns are excluded?
No.
Congress could have rejected it because members believed the existing statute already covered unpaid interns.
A judge cites three floor statements supporting her interpretation but ignores five statements pointing the opposite direction. What major criticism of legislative history does this illustrate?
Legislative history can be selectively used or manipulated to support a preferred interpretation.
Congress has repeatedly failed to amend a statute after a Supreme Court interpretation. A lawyer argues, “That proves Congress agrees with the Court.” What is the strongest response?
Congress agrees with the Court or Congressional silence is ambiguous and may fail to act for many reasons
Congressional silence is ambiguous. Congress may fail to act for many reasons unrelated to agreement.
Congress considers and rejects legislation expressly giving a federal agency authority over a particular product. The agency later argues that an existing statute already gives it that authority. Which chapter case most closely resembles this situation? FDA v. Brown & Williamson or Chisom v. Roemer
FDA v. Brown & Williamson
A statute prohibits “deceptive digitally altered media.” A committee report says the statute covers AI deepfakes. The bill's sponsor says wholly AI-generated content is covered. Another legislator says only alterations of existing content are covered. Congress also rejected an amendment expressly adding “wholly AI-generated media.” You are the judge. Which evidence would you give the most weight?
Coverage: The committee report deserves comparatively greater weight, and the sponsor's statement reinforces that interpretation.
No coverage: The rejected amendment is significant because Congress considered and rejected language that would expressly cover wholly AI-generated material.