Skip to main content

Unorthodox Lawmaking and Legislative Complexity in American Statutory Interpretation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation

Part of the book series: Legisprudence Library ((LEGIS,volume 8))

  • 352 Accesses

Abstract

The traditional legislative process is dead in the U.S. Statutes are increasingly long and complex omnibus efforts rushed through at the end of congressional sessions. Yet American statutory interpretation remains largely unchanged, with judges generally uninterested in the realities of the legislative process, despite claiming our dominant interpretive approach reflects Congress or is in conversation with it. Omnibus statutes pose challenges for judges who read statutes with assumptions of linguistic perfection and consistency—as American judges do—and the truncated legislative process results in more gaps and mistakes, problems that lack coherent doctrinal approaches in our courts. And American judges have never been willing to strike down federal statutes for lack of deliberation or process, preferring instead indirect nudges toward more “due process in lawmaking.” This chapter documents the rise of unorthodox modern lawmaking in the U.S., including omnibus lawmaking, and details its causes, costs and benefits. These developments are not unmitigated negatives; they are adaptations to the changing complexities of the American political system. It has been 50 years since the last congressional reorganization and another revolution may be coming. There is a burgeoning legal movement among scholars and some American jurists, including several Supreme Court justices, to bring understanding of the legislative process, and how it has changed, into our theories and doctrines of statutory interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Linde (1976).

  2. 2.

    Sinclair (2017).

  3. 3.

    Standing Rules of the Senate, S. Doc. No. 113–18 (2013); Rules of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, H. Res. 6 (2019); Cong. Research Serv., Reorganization of the House of Representatives: Modern Reform Efforts (2003); Cong. Research Serv., R30862, The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s “Byrd Rule” (2016), https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20161122_RL30862_ce42dbc9f4a53acdf63bcb8097c7392495568965.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Cloture Rule, U.S. Senate, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Cloture_Rule.htm.

  5. 5.

    Standing Rules of the Senate, S. Doc. No. 113–18, R. XXII (2013).

  6. 6.

    2 U.S.C. § 644.

  7. 7.

    See Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 352 (7th Cir. 2017) (Posner, J., concurring).

  8. 8.

    See King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015).

  9. 9.

    See Bar-Siman-Tov (2021).

  10. 10.

    Scalia (1997).

  11. 11.

    Gluck (2015).

  12. 12.

    Sinclair (2017).

  13. 13.

    Gluck et al. (2015) and Gluck and Bressman (2013, 2014).

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 1802.

  15. 15.

    Ibid., p. 1803.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 979.

  18. 18.

    Gluck et al. (2015), p. 1804.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., p. 1805.

  21. 21.

    Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1319 (2020).

  22. 22.

    Ibid., p. 1806.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., pp. 1807–1808.

  24. 24.

    Wolfensberger (2020).

  25. 25.

    Gluck et al. (2015), pp. 1808–1809.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p. 1809.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    O’Connell et al. (2020).

  29. 29.

    Gluck et al. (2015).

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 1813.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., pp. 1817–1818.The Affordable Care Act offer an important exception, with novel process requirements for Medicaid waivers.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., p. 1820.

  33. 33.

    Binder (2015).

  34. 34.

    Sinclair (2017).

  35. 35.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013).

  36. 36.

    Ibid., p. 750.

  37. 37.

    Elis (2020).

  38. 38.

    Stack (2010).

  39. 39.

    Reynolds (2019).

  40. 40.

    Ibid.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    Ibid.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    Fisk and Chemerinsky (1997).

  45. 45.

    Koger (2010).

  46. 46.

    Smith and Flathman (1989).

  47. 47.

    H. Comm’n on Immigration and Facilities, Staff Requirements of the House Legislative Counsel, H. Doc. 94-327 at 4.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid. at 5.

  50. 50.

    Gluck and Cross (2020).

  51. 51.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013).

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., p. 748.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 739.

  55. 55.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 757.

  56. 56.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 761.

  57. 57.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 980.

  58. 58.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 763.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., p. 936.

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    Ibid.

  62. 62.

    U.S. Const. art. I, § 5.

  63. 63.

    King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015).

  64. 64.

    Ibid. at 2492.

  65. 65.

    Gluck and Cross (2020).

  66. 66.

    Maine Community Health Options, supra.

  67. 67.

    See Digital Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767, 782–83 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., concurring).

  68. 68.

    See Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 562 (2015) (Kagan, Scalia, Kennedy & Thomas, JJ., dissenting).

  69. 69.

    See Loving v. I.R.S., 742 F.3d 1013, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

  70. 70.

    See Barton v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1442, 1453 (2020) (“[R]edundancies are common in statutory drafting—sometimes in a congressional effort to be doubly sure, sometimes because of congressional inadvertence or lack of foresight, or sometimes simply because of the shortcomings of human communication.”).

  71. 71.

    See United States Telecom Ass’n v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 855 F.3d 381, 422 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

  72. 72.

    See, e.g., Council for Urological Interests v. Burwell, 790 F.3d 212, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Henderson, J., dissenting) (“The Congress often uses legislative history, rather than the text, to restrain agencies in the exercise of their delegated authority”); see also United States v. Torres, 910 F.3d 1245, 1247–48 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Williams, J., dissenting) (noting that even the Gluck/Bressman study, the leading empirical work challenging the presumption that Congress imports prior judicial interpretations when it borrows a phrase from an earlier statute, recognizes the accuracy of that presumption where the relevant statutes are closely related).

  73. 73.

    United States v. Koutsostamatis, 956 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir. 2020); Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100, 130 (2d Cir. 2018), cert. granted sub nom. Altitude Exp., Inc. v. Zarda, 139 S. Ct. 1599 (2019); King v. Burwell, 759 F.3d 358, 378 (4th Cir. 2014), aff’d, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015).

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

  75. 75.

    Ibid.

  76. 76.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 781.

  77. 77.

    Gluck and Cross (2020).

  78. 78.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), p. 981.

  79. 79.

    Gluck and Cross (2020).

  80. 80.

    Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 705 (2012) (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & Alito, JJ., dissenting).

  81. 81.

    Id. at 706 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & Alito, JJ., dissenting).

  82. 82.

    See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 685 (1987) (“The more relevant inquiry in evaluating severability is whether the statute will function in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress.”).

  83. 83.

    Texas v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 3d 579, 616–17 (N.D. Tex. 2018).

  84. 84.

    Manning (2015).

  85. 85.

    Gluck and Bressman (2013), pp. 926–947.

  86. 86.

    Gluck (2015).

  87. 87.

    Easterbrook (2017).

  88. 88.

    Ibid.

  89. 89.

    See Bar-Siman-Tov (2015, 2019, 2021).

  90. 90.

    Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 672 (1892).

  91. 91.

    Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 738 (2008).

References

  • Bar-Siman-Tov I (2015) The role of courts in improving the legislative process. Theory Pract Legis 3:295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Siman-Tov I (2019) Quantinsky v. the Knesset in the matter of the third apartment tax: a necessary decision or an unjustified “Major Deviation” from the case law? Bar-Ilan U Law Rev 32:877–906

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Siman-Tov I (2021) An introduction to the comparative and multidisciplinary study of omnibus legislation. In: Bar-Siman-Tov I (ed) Comparative multidisciplinary perspectives on omnibus legislation. Springer, Cham. (in this volume)

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder A (2015) The dysfunctional congress. Ann Rev Political Sci 18:85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook F (2017) The absence of method in statutory interpretation. Univ Chicago Law Rev 84:81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Elis N (2020) CBO projects CARES Act will cost $1.76 trillion, not $2.2 trillion. The Hill. Available via The Hill. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/493218-cbo-projects-cares-act-will-cost-176-trillion-not-22-trillion. Accessed 23 June 2020

  • Fisk C, Chemerinsky E (1997) The filibuster. Standford Law Rev 49:181–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluck A (2015) Imperfect statutes, imperfect courts: understanding congress’s plan in the era of unorthodox lawmaking. Harv Law Rev 129:62–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck A, Bressman L (2013) Statutory interpretation from the inside—an empirical study of congressional drafting, delegation, and the canons: part I. Standford Law Rev 65:901–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck A, Bressman L (2014) Statutory interpretation from the inside—an empirical study of congressional drafting, delegation, and the canons: part II. Standford Law Rev 66:725–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck A, Cross J (2020) The congressional Bureaucracy. Univ Pa Law Rev. 168 (forthcomin)g

    Google Scholar 

  • Gluck A, O’Connell A, Po R (2015) Unorthodox lawmaking, unorthodox rulemaking. Columb Law Rev 115:1789–1866

    Google Scholar 

  • Koger G (2010) Filibustering: a political history of obstruction in the house and senate, 1st edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Linde H (1976) Due process of lawmaking. Neb Law Rev 55:197–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning J (2015) Inside congress’s mind. Columb Law Rev 115:1911–1952

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell J et al (2020) Following messy start, enormous Paycheck Protection Program shows signs of buttressing economy. Wash. Post. Available via Wash. Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/09/how-effective-is-ppp-small-business. Accessed 23 June 2020

  • Reynolds M et al (2019) Legislative productivity in congress and congressional workload. In: Vital Statistics On Congress. Brookings Institution. Available via Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Chpt-6.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2020

  • Scalia A (1997) Common law courts in a civil law system: the role of United States Federal Courts in interpreting the constitution and laws. In: Gutmann A (ed) A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair B (2017) Unorthodox lawmaking: new legislative processes in the U.S. Congress, 5th edn. CQ Press, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith S, Flathman M (1989) Managing the senate floor: complex unanimous consent agreements since the 1950s. Legis Stud Q 14:349–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack K (2010) The statutory fiction of judicial review of administrative action in the United States. In: Forsyth C et al (eds) Effective judicial review: a cornerstone of good governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 317–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfensberger D (2020) Procedural politics: what just happened with the coronavirus bill?. The Hill. Available via the Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/490106-procedural-politics-what-just-happened-with-the-coronavirus-bill. Accessed 23 June 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abbe R. Gluck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gluck, A.R. (2021). Unorthodox Lawmaking and Legislative Complexity in American Statutory Interpretation. In: Bar-Siman-Tov, I. (eds) Comparative Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Omnibus Legislation. Legisprudence Library, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72748-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72748-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72747-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72748-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics