Jonathan R. Siegel
Professor of Law
George Washington University |
Publications |
Judicial Interpretation in the Cost-Benefit Crucible |
||
92 Minn. L. Rev. 387 (2007) |
||
Abstract |
Professor Adrian Vermeule's new book, Judging
Under Uncertainty, argues that while no one can empirically determine
whether any net benefits arise from judicial use of legislative history
or other interpretive methods that go beyond simple enforcement of plain
text, such interpretive methods do impose substantial costs. Vermeule
concludes, therefore, that courts should discard such interpretive methods.
This article suggests, first, that the extent of the costs incurred as
a result of applying interpretive methods other than simply enforcing
plain text is far from clear. The article also suggests that it is uncertain
whether discarding such methods would result in any cost savings, both
because of costs that would remain if only some judges adopted Professor
Vermeule's theory and because, even if all judges adopted it, cost savings
from the use of simpler interpretive methods might be offset by other,
new costs, such as the costs imposed by judicial enforcement of clear
but erroneously drafted statutory text that produces absurd results. Finally,
the article argues that there are institutional reasons to believe that
courts do get net benefits from methods that permit them to look beyond
plain statutory text in some cases; most notably, the fact that courts
interpret statutes at the moment of implementation puts them in a good
position to detect statutory drafting errors. For these reasons, the article
recommends against adoption of Professor Vermeule's interpretive theory.
|