ACTIVE AVOIDANCE: THE MODERN SUPREME COURT AND LEGAL CHANGE
The Supreme Court in the last few years has resolved some of the most divisive and consequential cases before it by employing the same maneuver: construing statutes to avoid constitutional difficulty. Although the Court generally justifies the avoidance canon as a form of judicial restraint, these r...
Saved in:
Published in | Harvard law review Vol. 128; no. 8; pp. 2109 - 2165 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Cambridge
The Harvard Law Review Association
01.06.2015
Harvard Law Review Association |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | The Supreme Court in the last few years has resolved some of the most divisive and consequential cases before it by employing the same maneuver: construing statutes to avoid constitutional difficulty. Although the Court generally justifies the avoidance canon as a form of judicial restraint, these recent decisions have used the canon to camouflage acts of judicial aggression in both the statutory and constitutional spheres. In particular, the Court has adopted dubious readings of federal statutes that would have been unthinkable in the canon's absence. We call this move the "rewriting power. " The canon has also been used to articulate new constitutional norms and significant breaks from settled doctrine. We call this move "generative avoidance." Both practices are facets of the broader phenomenon of "active avoidance," which is the use of the avoidance canon to usher in legal change. This Article defines and critiques active avoidance by analyzing in detail two recent instances — Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) — as well as providing a briefer analysis of Bond v. United States. In Northwest Austin, the Court rewrote the bailout provision of the Voting Rights Act and gave birth to the "equal sovereignty" doctrine. In NFIB, the Court construed away a constitutional problem with the individual mandate and gave birth to what we call the "antinovelty doctrine": the principle that statutes without historical precedent are constitutionally suspect. The Article demonstrates that the rewriting power can have a countermajoritarian effect equal to — or even greater than — outright invalidation, because of certain features of our legislative process. And it shows how generative avoidance, by undermining some of the structural guarantors of judicial restraint, may encourage the Court to spearhead constitutional change. For these reasons, this Article sounds a cautionary note about the recent judicial temptation to use the avoidance canon. The Article concludes by offering a defense of a properly limited avoidance canon. |
---|---|
AbstractList | The Supreme Court in the last few years has resolved some of the most divisive and consequential cases before it by employing the same maneuver: construing statutes to avoid constitutional difficulty. Although the Court generally justifies the avoidance canon as a form of judicial restraint, these recent decisions have used the canon to camouflage acts of judicial aggression in both the statutory and constitutional spheres. In particular, the Court has adopted dubious readings of federal statutes that would have been unthinkable in the canon's absence. We call this move the "rewriting power." The canon has also been used to articulate new constitutional norms and significant breaks from settled doctrine. We call this move "generative avoidance." Both practices are facets of the broader phenomenon of "active avoidance," which is the use of the avoidance canon to usher in legal change. This Article defines and critiques active avoidance by analyzing in detail two recent instances -- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) -- as well as providing a briefer analysis of Bond v. US. In Northwest Austin, the Court rewrote the bailout provision of the Voting Rights Act and gave birth to the 'equal sovereignty' doctrine. In NFIB, the Court construed away a constitutional problem with the individual mandate and gave birth to what they call the 'antinovelty doctrine': the principle that statutes without historical precedent are constitutionally suspect. The Article demonstrates that the rewriting power can have a countermajoritarian effect equal to -- or even greater than -- outright invalidation, because of certain features of the legislative process. And it shows how generative avoidance, by undermining some of the structural guarantors of judicial restraint, may encourage the Court to spearhead constitutional change. The Article concludes by offering a defense of a properly limited avoidance canon. The Supreme Court in the last few years has resolved some of the most divisive and consequential cases before it by employing the same maneuver: construing statutes to avoid constitutional difficulty. Although the Court generally justifies the avoidance canon as a form of judicial restraint, these recent decisions have used the canon to camouflage acts of judicial aggression in both the statutory and constitutional spheres. In particular, the Court has adopted dubious readings of federal statutes that would have been unthinkable in the canon's absence. We call this move the "rewriting power. " The canon has also been used to articulate new constitutional norms and significant breaks from settled doctrine. We call this move "generative avoidance." Both practices are facets of the broader phenomenon of "active avoidance," which is the use of the avoidance canon to usher in legal change. This Article defines and critiques active avoidance by analyzing in detail two recent instances — Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) — as well as providing a briefer analysis of Bond v. United States. In Northwest Austin, the Court rewrote the bailout provision of the Voting Rights Act and gave birth to the "equal sovereignty" doctrine. In NFIB, the Court construed away a constitutional problem with the individual mandate and gave birth to what we call the "antinovelty doctrine": the principle that statutes without historical precedent are constitutionally suspect. The Article demonstrates that the rewriting power can have a countermajoritarian effect equal to — or even greater than — outright invalidation, because of certain features of our legislative process. And it shows how generative avoidance, by undermining some of the structural guarantors of judicial restraint, may encourage the Court to spearhead constitutional change. For these reasons, this Article sounds a cautionary note about the recent judicial temptation to use the avoidance canon. The Article concludes by offering a defense of a properly limited avoidance canon. This Article defines and critiques active avoidance by analyzing in detail two recent instances -- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB) -- as well as providing a briefer analysis of Bond v. US. In Northwest Austin, the Court rewrote the bailout provision of the Voting Rights Act and gave birth to the 'equal sovereignty' doctrine. In NFIB, the Court construed away a constitutional problem with the individual mandate and gave birth to what they call the 'antinovelty doctrine': the principle that statutes without historical precedent are constitutionally suspect. The Article demonstrates that the rewriting power can have a countermajoritarian effect equal to -- or even greater than -- outright invalidation, because of certain features of the legislative process. And it shows how generative avoidance, by undermining some of the structural guarantors of judicial restraint, may encourage the Court to spearhead constitutional change. The Article concludes by offering a defense of a properly limited avoidance canon. Adapted from the source document. |
Audience | Professional |
Author | Schmidt, Thomas P. Katyal, Neal Kumar |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Neal Kumar surname: Katyal fullname: Katyal, Neal Kumar – sequence: 2 givenname: Thomas P. surname: Schmidt fullname: Schmidt, Thomas P. |
BookMark | eNqN0V1LwzAUBuAiE9zUnyAUvFGwkjQnSatXpYtbYR8yt7G7krVp7ehabVrQf2_HBJ3sQgIncHjeF0J6RqcoC3VidG3MsOVytuoYXYQwtxyMV2dGT-sNQogRDl3j0fPnwVKY3nIa9L2JLx7M-VCY42lfzCbmy-J5JsbC9KeL2dz0Jn1zJAbeyPSH3mQgLozTROZaXX7f58biScz9oTWaDgLfG1kpAK8tDgmhJF4ThzlcIQ62S4BTcMCWtr2O1xEHxVmMCSGSsBgh16UQEaAJJIw65Ny42fe-VeV7o3QdbjMdqTyXhSobHWJOKAOKnH9Q5joudSljLb3-QzdlUxXtQ3bKBpdgh_6oVOYqzIqkrCsZ7UpDj3IbA8WMtMo6olJVqErm7WckWbs-8PdHfHtitc2io4Hbg0BravVRp7LROgyGwaG9-2XXjc4Kpduhs_S11vvIAb_a842uyyp8q7KtrD5DGxgARoR8ASLjqzY |
CODEN | HALRAF |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | Copyright © 2015 THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT 2015 Harvard Law Review Association Copyright Harvard Law Review Association Jun 2015 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2015 THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION – notice: COPYRIGHT 2015 Harvard Law Review Association – notice: Copyright Harvard Law Review Association Jun 2015 |
DBID | IHI ILT 7TQ 8BJ DHY DON FQK JBE |
DatabaseName | Gale In Context: U.S. History Gale OneFile: LegalTrac PAIS Index International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) PAIS International PAIS International (Ovid) International Bibliography of the Social Sciences International Bibliography of the Social Sciences |
DatabaseTitle | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) PAIS International |
DatabaseTitleList | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) PAIS International International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Law Business |
EISSN | 2161-976X |
EndPage | 2165 |
ExternalDocumentID | 3731275831 A572145163 24644103 |
Genre | Feature |
GeographicLocations | United States--US |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United States--US |
GroupedDBID | --- ..I .CB 0ZK 2-G 29I 2QL 5.J 5GY 6DY 7LF 85S 8OO 8VB 96U AACLI AAFWJ AAYOK ABACO ABBHK ABCQX ABDBF ABFRF ABLWH ABPPZ ABVAB ABXSQ ACBMB ACGFO ACHQT ACMJI ACNCT ADACV ADCHZ ADEPB ADEYR ADNFJ ADULT ADUOI AEFWE AEGXH AEGZQ AEMOZ AEUPB AFACB AFAZI AFXCU AGQRV AHEHV AIAGR AJPNJ AKNUK AKVCP AL2 ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AQSKT B-7 BAAKF BHRNT CS3 EAP EAU EBE EBR EBS EBU EJD EKAWT EMK ESX F5P F8P FM. FRS GCQ GDJ HCSNT HISYW HLR HOCAJ IAO IBB ICJ IEA IHI ILT IMI INH INR IOF IPB IPO IPSME ITC JAAYA JAV JBMMH JBZCM JENOY JHFFW JKQEH JLEZI JLXEF JPL JSODD JST K1G L7B LBL LGEZI LMKDQ LOTEE LU7 LXB LXL LXN LXO LXU LXY MVM N95 NADUK NXXTH OK1 P2P PQQKQ PV9 Q.- QWB RHO RWL RXW RZL S10 SA0 TAA TAC TAE TAF TH9 TQQ TQW TR2 TWJ TWL TWZ UFL ULE UNMZH UXK UXR VKN W2G WE1 WH7 X6Y XFL XI7 XPM XZL ZL0 ZRF ZRR ~X8 ~ZZ ABJZQ ABPTK AGHSJ AQNXB 7TQ 8BJ DHY DON FQK JBE |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-g447t-74f353db38687e0742934754842a22bdbc74e76d1333a36d009954c345f4f6583 |
ISSN | 0017-811X |
IngestDate | Fri Aug 16 23:45:30 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 16 22:10:11 EDT 2024 Fri Sep 13 06:52:53 EDT 2024 Fri Feb 23 00:02:28 EST 2024 Fri Feb 02 04:58:17 EST 2024 Fri Feb 02 04:24:12 EST 2024 Thu Aug 01 20:15:05 EDT 2024 Thu Oct 26 23:37:22 EDT 2023 Sun Sep 29 11:41:23 EDT 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 8 |
Language | English |
LinkModel | OpenURL |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-g447t-74f353db38687e0742934754842a22bdbc74e76d1333a36d009954c345f4f6583 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
PQID | 1692493185 |
PQPubID | 40916 |
PageCount | 57 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1735645088 proquest_miscellaneous_1698959566 proquest_journals_1692493185 gale_infotracmisc_A572145163 gale_infotracgeneralonefile_A572145163 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A572145163 gale_incontextgauss_IHI_A572145163 gale_businessinsightsgauss_A572145163 jstor_primary_24644103 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 20150601 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-06-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 6 year: 2015 text: 20150601 day: 1 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | Cambridge |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Cambridge |
PublicationTitle | Harvard law review |
PublicationYear | 2015 |
Publisher | The Harvard Law Review Association Harvard Law Review Association |
Publisher_xml | – name: The Harvard Law Review Association – name: Harvard Law Review Association |
SSID | ssj0006374 |
Score | 2.3696918 |
Snippet | The Supreme Court in the last few years has resolved some of the most divisive and consequential cases before it by employing the same maneuver: construing... This Article defines and critiques active avoidance by analyzing in detail two recent instances -- Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v.... |
SourceID | proquest gale jstor |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Publisher |
StartPage | 2109 |
SubjectTerms | Births Bonds Business Changes Constitution Constitutional interpretation Constitutional law Courts Demonstrations Judicial restraint Legislative process Litigation Methods Political aspects Reproductive health Sovereignty Supreme Court Supreme Court decisions U.S.A United States United States Supreme court Validity Voting Voting rights |
Title | ACTIVE AVOIDANCE: THE MODERN SUPREME COURT AND LEGAL CHANGE |
URI | https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644103 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1692493185/abstract/ https://search.proquest.com/docview/1698959566 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1735645088 |
Volume | 128 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3Nb9MwFLdouXBBDJjo2JBBfBxQ0BI7cQKnDlZ1qIwDrdRbZDtJmbSl05IywV_Pe7aTNGJCg4uVjxcn-r3kfTjvg5CX4OkUifJ9T4Jz4nEw2T2lwFlB31lpBS6EwGzkL6fRdME_L8Nl16zBZJfU6p3-dWNeyf9wFY4BXzFL9h84204KB2Ab-AsjcBjGW_F4bITVW_ljfZYh95ogjQvb4Ozb5hJX_0xfOhtIfp6vsB5Ik1HQmqVNh6Bzee2SWVpBLOuf0oZNYwliE5Hd_bz5fnGW1V2ckUsWc4sIftgFOzWCEZWVb7rXdIIxiLfegLgn5g6TLZXZ7W6Xsz79mk4Ws1k6P17OB2TA_HBI7o6PPh1NWlUZMVcm29291Ys2NvQP_WiU_vwBue-sdTq20O-QO3n5kAxm8voR-WDBpy347ylATy301EFPDfQUoKcGemqhf0wWk-P5x6nnOlF4K85F7QlesJBlisVRLHJcTkgYF-Ds8UAGgcqUFjwXUQYOP5MsytDuDrlmPCx4ATYe2yXDcl3mTwhVQZ5IIYQWYLwWcGkoMx1nidZBAeK1GJFXCEHqepDCUOEqTbWSm6pKx6EITG9lNiIvDB3W8CgxSMgSnExPekRvHFGxrq-kli7nAh4Fy371KF_3KFe26PlNhPs9QpBGund617AuvbTFUtKAo8V9iNc1vEzdJ1SlfoTuPybwj8jz9jROiaF_Zb7eGJo4CcGNj_5CIxhWRQKNuXeLeZ6Se903sE-G9dUmPwDTslbP3Av6G05fe3I |
link.rule.ids | 315,786,790 |
linkProvider | EBSCOhost |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Active+avoidance%3A+the+modern+Supreme+Court+and+legal+change&rft.jtitle=Harvard+law+review&rft.au=Katyal%2C+Neal+Kumar&rft.au=Schmidt%2C+Thomas+P&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.issn=0017-811X&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2109&rft.epage=2109&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0017-811X&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0017-811X&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0017-811X&client=summon |