Statutory and Common Law Interpretation

Statutory and Common Law Interpretation

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1-408

  Greenawalt, Kent ^a  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

Author keywords

Administrative interpretation; Bibliographic information; Common law interpretation; Constitutional structure; Legislative history; Reasoning by analogy; Rule of lenity; Statutory law interpretation; Unreliability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921325282     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199756148.001.0001     Document Type: Book

References (394)

1. Christopher S. Kelley, "The Last Word: Presidential Power and the Role of Signing Statements," 38 Presidential Studies Quarterly 248, 250-251 (2008).
2. Christopher S. Kelley, "A Matter of Direction: The Reagan Administration, the Signing Statement and the 1986 Westlaw Decision," 16 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 283, 284 (2007).
3. Marc N. Garber and Kurt A. Wimmer, "Presidential Signing Statements as Interpretations of Legislative Intent: An Executive Aggrandizement of Power," 24 Harvard Journal on Legislation 363, 374-375 (1987).
4. Curtis A. Bradley and Eric A. Posner, "Presidential Signing Statements and Executive Power," 23 Constitutional Commentary 307 (2006).
5. Jean Galbraith, "Prospective Advice and Consent," 37 Yale Journal of International Law (2012), available at http:// srn.com/abstract=1884233 (last accessed May 20, 2012).
6. Mark R. Killenbeck, "A Matter of Mere Approval? The Role of the President in the Creation of Legislative History," 48 Arkansas Law Review 239, 286-287 (1995).
7. William D. Popkin, "Judicial Use of Presidential Legislative History: A Critique," 66 Indiana Law Journal 699, 715-716 (1991).
8. Kristy L. Carroll, "Whose Statute Is It Anyway?: Why and How Courts Should Use Presidential Signing Statements When Interpreting Federal Statutes," 46 Catholic University Law Review 475, 518-519 (1997).
9. Frank B. Cross, "The Constitutional Legitimacy and Significance of Presidential Signing Statements," 40 Administrative Law Review 209, 226-228 (1988).
10. David C. Jenson, Note, "From Deference to Restraint: Using the Chevron Framework to Evaluate Presidential Signing Statements," 91 Minnesota Law Review 1908, 1921-23 (2007).
11. Lawrence C. Marshall, "'Let Congress Do It': The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis," 88 Michigan Law Review 177, 200-08 (1989).
12. William N. Eskridge, Jr., "Interpreting Legislative Inaction," 87 Michigan Law Review 67, 69 (1988).
13. William N. Eskridge, Jr., "Overruling Statutory Precedents," 76 Georgetown Law Journal 1361, 1383 (1988).
14. Amy Coney Barrett, "Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals," 73 George Washington Law Review 317 (2005).
15. Michael Livingston, "What's Blue and White and Not Quite as Good as a Committee Report: General Explanations and the Role of 'Subsequent' Tax Legislative History," 11 American Journal of Tax Policy 91, 96 (1994).
16. James J. Brudney and Corey Ditslear, "The Warp and Woof of Statutory Interpretation: Comparing Supreme Court Approaches in Tax Law and Workplace Law," 58 Duke Law Journal 1231 (2009).
17. James J. Brudney, "Congressional Commentary on Judicial Interpretation of Statutes: Idle Chatter or Telling Response?" 93 Michigan Law Review 1 (1994).
18. Cass R. Sunstein, "Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State," 103 Harvard Law Review 405, 456-458 (1989).
19. Sandra Beth Zellmer, "Sacrificing Legislative Integrity at the Altar of Appropriations Riders: A Constitutional Crisis," 21 Harvard Environmental Law Review 457, 499-507 (1997).
20. David Shapiro, "Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation," 67 New York University Law Review 921, 925 (1992).
21. Jane S. Schacter, "The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond," 51 Stanford Law Review 1, 12 (1998).
22. Geoffrey Miller, "Pragmatics and the Maxims of Interpretation," 1990 Wisconsin Law Review 1179 (1990).
23. M. B. W. Sinclair, "Law and Language: The Role of Pragmatics in Statutory Interpretation," 46 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 373 (1985).
24. Karl N. Llewellyn, "Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed," 3 Vanderbilt Law Review 395 (1950).
25. John F. Manning, "Legal Realism and the Canons' Revival," 5 Green Bag 283 (2002).
26. Max Radin, "Statutory Interpretation," 43 Harvard Law Review 863, 873 (1930).
27. Zachary Price, "The Rule of Lenity as a Rule of Structure," 72 Fordham Law Review 885 (2004).
28. Lawrence M. Solan, "Law, Language, and Lenity," 40 William and Mary Law Review 57 (1998).
29. William J. Stuntz, "The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law," 100 Michigan Law Review 505 (2001).
30. Henry Paul Monaghan, "On Avoiding Avoidance, Agenda Control, and Related Matters," 112 Columbia Law Review 665, 675 (2012).
31. Amanda L. Tyler, "Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons," 99 Northwestern Law Review 1389, 1418-1429 (2005).
32. David Shapiro, "Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation," 67 New York University Law Review 921 (1992).
33. William N. Eskridge, Jr.,"Norms, Empiricism, and Canons in Statutory Interpretation," 66 University of Chicago Law Review 671, 682-683 (1999).
34. Jonathan R. Macey, "Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model," 86 Columbia Law Review 223 (1986).
35. Richard A. Posner, "Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution," 37 Case Western. Reserve Law Review 179 (1986-87).
36. Dan M. Kahan, "The Supreme Court, 2010 Term- Foreword: Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law," 125 Harvard Law Review 1, 19-27 (2011).
37. Johnny C. Parker, "Equal Protection Minus Strict Scrutiny Plus Benign Classification Equals What? Equality of Opportunity," 11 Pace Law Review 213, 218 (1991).
38. Lawrence C. Marshall, "'Let Congress Do It': The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis," 88 Michigan Law Review 177, 219-226 (1989).
39. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, "Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation," 115 Harvard Law Review 2085, 2087-88 (2002).
40. Jonathan R. Siegel, "The Use of Legislative History in a System of Separated Powers," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1457, 1479-80 (2000).
41. Ethan J. Leib and Michael Serota, "The Costs of Consensus in Statutory Construction," 120 Yale Law Journal Online 47 (2010).
42. James J. Brudney, "Below the Surface: Comparing Legislative History Usage by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court," 85 Washington University Law Review 1, 11-12 (2007).
43. John F. Manning, "The Absurdity Doctrine," 116 Harvard Law Review 2387 (2003).
44. Caleb Nelson, "Statutory Interpretation and Decision Theory," 74 University of Chicago Law Review 329, 331 (2007).
45. Jonathan R. Siegel, "Judicial Interpretation in the Cost-Benefit Crucible," 92 Minnesota Law Review 387, 389 (2007).
46. Richard L. Hasen's defense of the favoring of claims of voting rights under the "democracy canon." "The Democracy Canon," 62 Stanford Law Review 69, 104-105 (2009).
47. Amanda L. Tyler, "Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons," 99 Northwestern University Law Review 1389, 1413 (2005).
48. Elizabeth Garrett, "Preferences, Laws, and Default Rules," 122 Harvard Law Review 2104, 2114-2119 (2009).
49. W. David Slawson, "Legislative History and the Need to Bring Statutory Interpretation Under the Rule of Law," 44 Stanford Law Review 383, 397 (1992).
50. Harry Wilmer Jones, "Extrinsic Aids in the Federal Courts," 25 Iowa Law Review 737, 753-754 (1940).
51. Lawrence M. Solan, The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation 53-77 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010).
52. Peter L. Strauss, Legal Methods: Understanding and Using Cases and Statutes (2d ed.) 236-239 (New York, Foundation Press, 2008).
53. Stephen Breyer, "On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes," 65 Southern California Law Review 845 (1992).
54. James M. Landis, "A Note on 'Statutory Interpretation,'" 43 Harvard Law Review 886, 889 (1929-30).
55. Archibald Cox, "Judge Learned Hand and the Interpretation of Statutes," 60 Harvard Law Review 370, 384 (1947).
56. Abbe R. Gluck, "The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism," 119 Yale Law Journal 1750 (2010).
57. John F. Manning, "Putting Legislative History to a Vote: A Response to Professor Siegel," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1529 (2000).
58. Jonathan R. Siegel, "The Use of Legislative History in a System of Separated Powers," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1457, 1480-1497 (2000).
59. Jonathan R. Siegel, "Timing and Delegation: A Reply," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1543 (2000).
60. Nicholas S. Zeppos, "Legislative History and the Interpretation of Statutes: Toward a Fact-Finding Model of Statutory Interpretation," 76 Virginia Law Review 1295, 1313 (1990).
61. Peter J. Smith, "Textualism and Jurisdiction," 108 Columbia Law Review 1883 (2008).Ruth Sullivan, "Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada," 30 Ottawa Law Review 175 (1998-1999).
62. Ruth Sullivan, "Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada," 30 Ottawa Law Review 175 (1998-1999).
63. Richard A. Danner, "Justice Jackson's Lament: Historical and Comparative Perspective on the Availability of Legislative History," 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 151, 192-193 (2003).
64. Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, "Hierarchy and Heterogeneity: How to Read a Statute in a Lower Court," 97 Cornell Law Review 433, 475 (2012).
65. Jane S. Schacter, "The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond," 51 Stanford Law Review 1 (1998).
66. Harry Willmer Jones, "The Plain Meaning Rule and Extrinsic Aids in the Interpretation of Federal Statutes," 25 Washington University Law Quarterly 2, 5 (1939).
67. James A. E. MacPherson, "Legislative Intentionalism and Proxy Agency," 29 Law and Philosophy 1 (2010).
68. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281, 289 (1989).
69. Miriam R. Jorgensen and Kenneth A. Shepsle, "A Comment on the Positive Canons Project," 57 Law and Contemporary Problems 43, 46-48 (1994).
70. Cass R. Sunstein, "Must Formalism Be Defended Empirically?," 66 University of Chicago Law Review 636 (1999).
71. Max Radin, "A Short Way with Statutes," 56 Harvard Law Review 388, 411 (1942).
72. John F. Manning, "What Divides Textualists From Purposivists?" 106 Columbia Law Review 70, 78 (2006).
73. Caleb Nelson, "What is Textualism?," 91 Virginia Law Review 347, 398-399 (2005).
74. Caleb Nelson, "A Response to Professor Manning," 91 Virginia Law Review 451, 464-465 (2005).
75. Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Court and the Economic System," 98 Harvard Law Review 4, 14-18 (1983).
76. Jonathan A. Macey, "Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model," 86 Columbia Law Review 223 (1986).
77. Kent Greenawalt, "The Nature of Rules and the Meaning of Meaning," 72 Notre Dame Law Review 1449, 1462-1469 (1997).
78. Abbe R. Gluck, "The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism," 119 Yale Law Journal 1750 (2010).
79. Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction," 11 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 59 (1988).
80. Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Legislative Intent," 75 Yale Law Journal 754 (1966).
81. Lawrence M. Solan, "The New Textualists' New Text," 38 Loyola Law Review 2027, 2028 (2005).
82. Daniel A Farber and Philip P. Frickey, "Legislative Intent and Public Choice," 74 Virginia Law Review 423, 456 (1988).
83. Charles Tiefer, "The Reconceptualization of Legislative History in the Supreme Court," 2000 Wisconsin Law Review 205, 214-215 (2000).
84. Peter L. Strauss, "When the Judge Is Not the Primary Official with Responsibility to Read: Agency Interpretation and the Problem of Legislative History," 66 Chicago-Kent Law Review 321 (1990).
85. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281 (1989).
86. John F. Manning, "Textualism and Legislative Intent," 91 Virginia Law Review 419, 424 (2005).
87. Joseph Raz, Between Authority and Interpretation 282-284 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009).
88. Caleb Nelson, "A Response to Professor Manning," 91 Virginia Law Review 451, 454-455 (2005).
89. John F. Manning, "What Divides Textualists from Purposivists?," 106 Columbia Law Review 71, 74, 92, 103- 104 (2006).
90. Lon Fuller, "Positivism and Fidelity to Law-a Reply to Professor Hart," 71 Harvard Law Review 630, 664 (1958).
91. Peter L. Strauss, "The Courts and Congress: Should Judges Disclaim Political History?," 98 Columbia Law Review 242, 257-261 (1998).
92. Richard A. Posner, "Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution," 37 Case Western Reserve Law Review 179, 189-190 (1986-87).
93. John F. Manning, "The Absurdity Doctrine," 116 Harvard Law Review 2387, 2424-2429 (2003).
94. John Willis, "Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell," 16 Canadian Bar Review 1, 3 (1938).
95. D. J. Payne, "The Intention of the Legislature in the Interpretation of Statutes," 9 Current Legal Problems 95, 97-98 (1956)
96. Lawrence M. Solan, "Private Language, Public Laws: The Central Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory Interpretation," 93 Georgetown Law Journal 427 (2005).
97. John F. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine," 97 Columbia Law Review 673, 706-719 (1997).
98. Paul Brest, "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding," 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 209-213 (1980).
99. Miriam R. Jorgensen and Kenneth A. Shepsle, "A Comment on the Positive Canons Project," 57 Law and Contemporary Problems 43, 46-48 (1994).
100. Peter Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187, 1192-1195 (2007).
101. Shawn J. Bayern, "Case Interpretation," 36 Florida State University Law Review 125, 138-143 (2009).
102. Ronald Dworkin, "Seven Critics," 11 Georgia Law Review 1201 (1977).
103. Scott Brewer, "Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy," 109 Harvard Law Review 923, 926 (1996).
104. Ronald Dworkin, "In Praise of Theory," 29 Arizona State Law Journal 353, 371 (1997).
105. Barbara A. Spellman, "Reflections of a Recovering Lawyer: How Becoming a Cognitive Psychologist-and (in Particular) Studying Analogical and Causal Reasoning-Changed My Views about the Field of Psychology and Law," 79 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1187, 1190-1203 (2004).
106. Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich, "Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases," 93 Cornell Law Review 1, 29 (2007).
107. Charles W. Kalish, "How Children Use Examples to Make Conditional Predictions," 116 Cognition 1 (2010).
108. Barbara A. Spellman, "Judges, Expertise, and Analogy," in D. Klein and G. Mitchell, eds., The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making 146, 150- 152 (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010).
109. Cass R. Sunstein, "On Analogical Reasoning," 106 Harvard Law Review 741, 746-748 (1993).
110. Emily Sherwin, "A Defense of Analogical Reasoning in Law," 66 University of Chicago Law Review 1179, 1186-1189 (1999).
111. Sylvan H. Hirsch, "Limited Liability of Innkeepers under Statutory Regulations," 76 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 272, 273 (1928).
112. Wilson Huhn, "The Stages of Legal Reasoning: Formalism, Analogy, and Realism," 48 Villanova Law Review 305 (2003).
113. Paul A. Freund, "Rationality in Judicial Decisions," in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Nomos VIII: Rational Decision 109, 111, 119-120 (Palo Alto, Atherton Press, 1964).
114. Peter M. Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1188 (2007).
115. Shawn J. Bayern, "Case Interpretation," 36 Florida State University Law Review, 125 (2009).
116. Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, "Defining Dicta," 57 Stanford Law Review 953 (2005).
117. Peter Westen, "The Empty Idea of Equality," 95 Harvard Law Review 537 (1982).
118. Christopher J. Peters, "Equality Revisited," 110 Harvard Law Review 1210 (1997).
119. Kent Greenawalt, "'Prescriptive Equality': Two Steps Forward," 110 Harvard Law Review 1265 (1997).
120. Frederick Schauer, "Why Precedent in Law (and Elsewhere) Is Not Totally (or Even Substantially) About Analogy," 3 Perspectives on Psychological Science 454, 458 (2008).
121. Arthur L. Goodhart, "The Ratio Decidendi of a Case," 22 Modern Law Review 117 (1959).
122. Peter M. Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187, 1247-1260 (2007).
123. Jordan Wilder Connors, "Treating Like Subdecisions Alike: The Scope of Stare Decisis as Applied to Judicial Methodology," 108 Columbia Law Review 681 (2008).
124. Jerome Frank, "Words and Music: Some Remarks on Statutory Interpretation," 47 Columbia Law Review 1259, 1275 (1947).
125. Ronald M. Dworkin, "The Model of Rules," 35 University of Chicago Law Review 14 (1967).
126. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law 259- 263 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994).
127. Joseph Raz, "Legal Principles and the Limits of Law," 81 Yale Law Journal 823, 827 (1972).
128. Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1921).
129. Jody S. Kraus, "Transparency and Determinacy in Common Law Adjudication: A Philosophical Defense of Explanatory Economic Analysis," 93 Virginia Law Review 287, 303 (2007).
130. J. R. Hicks, "The Foundations of Welfare Economics," 49 Economics Journal 696 (1939).
131. Nicholas Kaldor, "Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," 40 Economics Journal 549 (1939).
132. Nicholas Kaldor, "Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," 40 Economics Journal 549 (1939).
133. Richard A. Posner, "Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory," 8 Journal of Legal Studies 103 (1979).
134. Richard A. Posner, "The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication," 8 Hofstra Law Review 487 (1980).
135. George L.Priest, "The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules," 6 Journal of Legal Studies 65 (1977).
136. R. H, Coase, "The Problem of Social Cost," 3 Journal of Law and Economics 1 (1960).
137. Guido Calabresi and A. Douglas Melamed, "Property Rules, Liability Rules and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral," 85 Harvard Law Review 1089 (1972).
138. Stephen A. Smith, Contract Theory (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004).
139. Jules Coleman, The Practice of Principle: In Defense of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory (New York, Oxford University Press, 2001).
140. Richard S. Markovits, "Legal Analysis and the Economic Analysis of Allocative Efficiency," 8 Hofstra Law Review 811, 853-856 (1980).
141. Jody S. Kraus, "From Langdell to Law and Economics: Two Conceptions of Stare Decisis in Contract Law and Theory," 94 Virginia Law Review 157 (2008).
142. Ronald Dworkin, "In Praise of Theory," 29 Arizona State Law Journal 353 (1997).
143. Frederick Schauer, Book Review, "Is the Common Law Law?," 77 California Law Review 455, 469-470 (1989).
144. John F. Manning, "Textualism and the Equity of the Statute," 101 Columbia Law Review 1, 127 (2001).
145. William N. Eskridge, Jr., "All About Words: Early Understandings of the 'Judicial Power' in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806," 101 Columbia Law Review 990, 991 (2001).
146. Jane S. Schacter, "The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond," 51 Stanford Law Review 1, 2 (1998).
147. Jerry L. Mashaw, "As-If-Republican Interpretation," 97 Yale Law Journal 1685, 1686 (1988).
148. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281 (1989)
149. John F. Manning, "Second Generation Textualism," 98 California Law Review 1287, 1315-1316 (2010).
150. Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Legislative Intent," 75 Yale Law Journal 754, 760-761 (1966).
151. Michael C. Dorf, "The Supreme Court 1997 Term, Foreword: The Limits of Socratic Deliberation," 112 Harvard Law Review 4 (1998).
152. John F. Manning, "Deriving Rules of Statutory Interpretation from the Constitution," 101 Columbia Law Review 1648, 1677-1680 (2001).
153. Robert M. Cover's essay "Foreword: Nomos and Narrative," 97 Harvard Law Review 4 (1983).
154. Adrian Vermeule, Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2006).
155. Henry M. Hart, Jr., and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1124-1125 (William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Philip P. Frickey, eds., Westbury, Foundation Press, 1994).
156. Jane S. Schacter, "Metademocracy: The Changing Structure of Legitimacy in Statutory Interpretation," 108 Harvard Law Review 593 (1995).
157. Peter L. Strauss, in Administrative Justice in the United States (Durham, N.C., Carolina Academic Press, 2002), especially pp. 349-375.
158. Peter Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187, 1192-1195 (2007).
159. Guido Calabresi, A Common Law for the Age of Statutes (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1982).
160. Robert M. Cover's essay "Foreword: Nomos and Narrative," 97 Harvard Law Review 4 (1983).
161. Abbe R. Gluck, "The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism," 119 Yale Law Journal 1750 (2010).
162. John F. Manning, "Textualism and the Equity of the Statute," 101 Columbia Law Review 1, 127 (2001).
163. W. David Slawson, "Legislative History and the Need to Bring Statutory Interpretation Under the Rule of Law," 44 Stanford Law Review 383, 397 (1992).
164. Reed Dickerson, The Interpretation and Application of Statutes 137 (Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1975).
165. Harry Wilmer Jones, "Extrinsic Aids in the Federal Courts," 25 Iowa Law Review 737, 753-754 (1940).
166. William N. Eskridge, Jr., "All About Words: Early Understandings of the 'Judicial Power' in Statutory Interpretation, 1776-1806," 101 Columbia Law Review 990, 991 (2001).
167. Jonathan T. Molot, "The Rise and Fall of Textualism," 106 Columbia Law Review 1, 6 (2006).
168. John Farrar, "Book Review," 14 Waikato Law Review 145 (2006).
169. Christopher S. Kelley, "The Last Word: Presidential Power and the Role of Signing Statements," 38 Presidential Studies Quarterly 248, 250-251 (2008).
170. Charlie Savage, "Obama Takes a New Route to Opposing Parts of Laws," The New York Times, January 9, 2010, p. A10.
171. Gerald J. Postema, "The Philosophy of the Common Law," in Jules Coleman and Scott Shapiro, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and the Philosophy of Law 588, 590-592 (Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2002).
172. Peter Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187 (2007).
173. Shawn J. Bayern, "Case Interpretation," 36 Florida State University Law Review, 125 (2009).
174. Scott Brewer, "Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy," 109 Harvard Law Review 923, 926 (1996).
175. Jerome Frank, "Words and Music: Some Remarks on Statutory Interpretation," 47 Columbia Law Review 1259, 1275 (1947).
176. Christopher S. Kelley, "A Matter of Direction: The Reagan Administration, the Signing Statement and the 1986 Westlaw Decision," 16 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 283, 284 (2007).
177. Jane S. Schacter, "The Confounding Common Law Originalism in Recent Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation: Implications for the Legislative History Debate and Beyond," 51 Stanford Law Review 1, 2 (1998).
178. Evan H. Caminker, "Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?," 46 Stanford Law Review 817 (1994).
179. Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire 342-350 (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1986).
180. Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction," 11 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 59 (1988).
181. John F. Manning, "Textualism and the Equity of the Statute," 101 Columbia Law Review 1, 109 (2001).
182. Jerry L. Mashaw, "As-If-Republican Interpretation," 97 Yale Law Journal 1685, 1686 (1988).
183. Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, "Defining Dicta," 57 Stanford Law Review 953 (2005).
184. Jerry L. Mashaw, "Norms, Practices, and the Paradox of Deference: A Preliminary Inquiry into Agency Statutory Interpretation," 57 Administrative Law Review 501, 542 (2005).
185. Ronald M. Dworkin, "The Model of Rules," 35 University of Chicago Law Review 14 (1967).
186. William D. Popkin, "The Collaborative Model of Statutory Interpretation," 61 Southern California Law Review 541 (1988).
187. Ellen E. Sward, "Justification and Doctrinal Evaluation," 37 Connecticut Law Review 389 (2004).
188. Adrian Vermeule, Judging Under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2006).
189. Marc N. Garber and Kurt A. Wimmer, "Presidential Signing Statements as Interpretations of Legislative Intent: An Executive Aggrandizement of Power," 24 Harvard Journal on Legislation 363, 374-375 (1987).
190. Curtis A. Bradley and Eric A. Posner, "Presidential Signing Statements and Executive Power," 23 Constitutional Commentary 307 (2006).
191. Henry M. Hart, Jr., and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 1124-1125 (William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Philip P. Frickey, eds., Westbury, Foundation Press, 1994).
192. A. Juthe, "Argument by Analogy," 19 Argumentation 1, 5-8 (2005).
193. Jane S. Schacter, "Metademocracy: The Changing Structure of Legitimacy in Statutory Interpretation," 108 Harvard Law Review 593 (1995).
194. Lawrence M. Solan, The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation 53-77 (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010).
195. Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Legislative Intent," 75 Yale Law Journal 754 (1966).
196. Lawrence M. Solan, "The New Textualists' New Text," 38 Loyola Law Review 2027, 2028 (2005).
197. Daniel A Farber and Philip P. Frickey, "Legislative Intent and Public Choice," 74 Virginia Law Review 423, 456 (1988)
198. Jean Galbraith, "Prospective Advice and Consent," 37 Yale Journal of International Law (2012), available at http:// srn.com/abstract=1884233 (last accessed May 20, 2012).
199. Kevin M. Stack, "Agency Statutory Interpretation and Policymaking Form," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 225, 233.
200. Peter L. Strauss, in "The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch," 84 Columbia Law Review 573 (1984)
201. Walter V. Schaefer, "Precedent and Policy," 34 University of Chicago Law Review 3, 8 (1966).
202. Charles Tiefer, "The Reconceptualization of Legislative History in the Supreme Court," 2000 Wisconsin Law Review 205, 214-215 (2000)
203. Michael Herz, "Purposivism and Institutional Competence in Statutory Interpretation," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 89, 90-91.
204. Martin Krygier, "Julius Stone: Leeways of Choice, Legal Tradition and the Declaratory Theory of Law," 9 University of New South Wales Law Journal 26 (1986).
205. Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1986). He emphasizes discovery in "Judicial Discretion," 60 Journal of Philosophy 624 (1963).
206. Jerry L. Mashaw and Avi Perry, "Administrative Statutory Interpretation in the Antebellum Republic," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 7, 9-10.
207. Peter L. Strauss, "One Hundred Fifty Cases Per Year: Some Implications of the Supreme Court's Limited Resources for Judicial Review of Agency Action," 87 Columbia Law Review 1093 (1987).
208. Mark R. Killenbeck, "A Matter of Mere Approval? The Role of the President in the Creation of Legislative History," 48 Arkansas Law Review 239, 286-287 (1995).
209. Larry Alexander and Ken Kress, "Against Legal Principles," 82 Iowa Law Review 739 (1997).
210. William D. Popkin, "Judicial Use of Presidential Legislative History: A Critique," 66 Indiana Law Journal 699, 715-716 (1991).
211. Michael Kirby, "Precedent Law, Practice and Trends in Australia," 28 Australian Bar Review 243, 244 (2007).
212. Russell Smyth, "A Century of Citation: Case-Law and Secondary Authority in the Supreme Court of Western Australia," 34 University of Western Australia Law Review 145, 148-149 (2008).
213. Caleb Nelson, "What Is Textualism?," 91 Virginia Law Review 347, 349 (2005).
214. Peter L. Strauss, "When the Judge Is Not the Primary Official with Responsibility to Read: Agency Interpretation and the Problem of Legislative History," 66 Chicago-Kent Law Review 321, 322-325 (1990).
215. Ronald Dworkin, "In Praise of Theory," 29 Arizona State Law Journal 353, 371 (1997).
216. Roscoe Pound, "Common Law and Legislation," 21 Harvard Law Review 383 (1908).
217. Peter L. Strauss, "When the Judge Is Not the Primary Official with Responsibility to Read: Agency Interpretation and the Problem of Legislative History," 66 Chicago-Kent Law Review 321 (1990).
218. Stephen Breyer, "On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes," 65 Southern California Law Review 845 (1992).
219. James M. Landis, "A Note on 'Statutory Interpretation,'" 43 Harvard Law Review 886, 889 (1929-30).
220. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281 (1989).
221. Robert F. Williams, "Statutes as Sources of Law Beyond Their Terms in Common-Law Cases," 50 George Washington Law Review 554, 557 (1982).
222. F. M. Kamm, "Theory and Analogy in Law," 29 Arizona State Law Journal 405, 413 (1997).
223. Peter Westen, "The Empty Idea of Equality," 95 Harvard Law Review 537 (1982).
224. Frank B. Cross, "The Constitutional Legitimacy and Significance of Presidential Signing Statements," 40 Administrative Law Review 209, 226-228 (1988).
225. David C. Jenson, Note, "From Deference to Restraint: Using the Chevron Framework to Evaluate Presidential Signing Statements," 91 Minnesota Law Review 1908, 1921-23 (2007).
226. Barbara A. Spellman, "Reflections of a Recovering Lawyer: How Becoming a Cognitive Psychologist-and (in Particular) Studying Analogical and Causal Reasoning-Changed My Views about the Field of Psychology and Law," 79 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1187, 1190-1203 (2004).
227. Christopher J. Peters, "Equality Revisited," 110 Harvard Law Review 1210 (1997).
228. Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, and Andrew J. Wistrich, "Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases," 93 Cornell Law Review 1, 29 (2007).
229. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281 (1989).
230. Frederick Schauer, "Precedent," 39 Stanford Law Review 571, 595-602 (1987).
231. Peter L. Strauss, "The Common Law and Statutes," 70 University of Colorado Law Review 225 (1999).
232. Todd D. Rakoff, "Statutory Interpretation as a Multifarious Enterprise," 104 Northwestern Law Review 1559 (2010).
233. Thomas W. Merrill, "The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts," 52 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1988).
234. William S. Blatt, "The History of Statutory Interpretation: A Study in Form and Substance," 6 Cardozo Law Review 799 (1985).
235. John F. Manning, "Textualism and Legislative Intent," 91 Virginia Law Review 419, 424 (2005).
236. Richard A. Posner, How Judges Think 81, 84-85 (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2008).
237. Lawrence C. Marshall, "'Let Congress Do It': The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis," 88 Michigan Law Review 177, 200-08 (1989).
238. Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., "Legislative Intent," 75 Yale Law Journal 754, 760-761 (1966).
239. Charles W. Kalish, "How Children Use Examples to Make Conditional Predictions," 116 Cognition 1 (2010).
240. Zenon Bankowski, D. Neil MacCormick, and Geoffrey Marshall, "Precedent in the United Kingdom," in Interpreting Precedents, note 6 supra, at 315, 332.
241. Barbara A. Spellman, "Judges, Expertise, and Analogy," in D. Klein and G. Mitchell, eds., The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making 146, 150- 152 (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010).
242. Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1921).
243. Jaap Hage, "The Logic of Analogy in Law," 19 Argumentation 401, 404-405 (2005).
244. Lawence B. Solum, in "The Interpretation-Construction Distinction," 27 Constitutional Commentary 95 (2010).
245. Archibald Cox, "Judge Learned Hand and the Interpretation of Statutes," 60 Harvard Law Review 370, 384 (1947).
246. Joseph Raz, Between Authority and Interpretation 282-284 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009).
247. Jonathan R. Siegel, "Guardians of the Background Principles," 2009 Michigan State Law Review, 123-124.
248. Jonathan T. Molot, "The Rise and Fall of Textualism," 106 Columbia Law Review 1, 6 (2006).
249. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., "What Factors Can an Agency Consider in Making a Decision?," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 67, 74-75.
250. Caleb Nelson, "A Response to Professor Manning," 91 Virginia Law Review 451, 454-455 (2005).
251. Peter L. Strauss, in "Overseer, or 'The Decider'? The President in Administrative Law," 75 George Washington Law Review 696 (2007).
252. Arthur L. Goodhart, "The Ratio Decidendi of a Case," 22 Modern Law Review 117 (1959).
253. John F. Horty, "The Result Model of Precedent," 10 Legal Theory 19 (2004).
254. Lawrence M. Solan, "Law, Language, and Lenity," 40 William and Mary Law Review 57 (1998).
255. Jerry L. Mashaw, "Agency-Centered or Court-Centered Administrative Law? A Dialogue with Richard Pierce on Agency Statutory Interpretation," 59 Administrative Law Review, 889, 896- 898 (2007).
256. Shawn J. Bayern, "Case Interpretation," 36 Florida State University Law Review 125, 138-143 (2009).
257. Abbe R. Gluck, "The States as Laboratories of Statutory Interpretation: Methodological Consensus and the New Modified Textualism," 119 Yale Law Journal 1750 (2010).
258. Amy Coney Barrett, "Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals," 73 George Washington Law Review 317 (2005).
259. David Dyzenhaus and Michael Taggart, "Reasoned Decisions and Legal Theory," in Douglas Edlin, ed., Common Law Theory 134 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
260. Walter V. Schaefer, "Precedent and Policy," 34 University of Chicago Law Review 3, 5, 9 (1966).
261. Peter M. Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187, 1247-1260 (2007).
262. Peter L. Strauss, "The President and Choices Not to Enforce," 63 Law and Contemporary Problems 107 (2000).
263. David Barron, "Constitutionalism in the Shadow of Doctrine: The President's Non-Enforcement Power," 63 Law and Contemporary Problems 61 Law and Contemporary Problems 61 (2000).
264. Dawn E. Johnsen, "Presidential Non-Enforcement of Constitutionally Objectionable Statutes," 63 Law and Contemporary Problems 7 (2000).
265. Michael Livingston, "What's Blue and White and Not Quite as Good as a Committee Report: General Explanations and the Role of 'Subsequent' Tax Legislative History," 11 American Journal of Tax Policy 91, 96 (1994).
266. James J. Brudney and Corey Ditslear, "The Warp and Woof of Statutory Interpretation: Comparing Supreme Court Approaches in Tax Law and Workplace Law," 58 Duke Law Journal 1231 (2009).
267. Michael L. Eber, Comment, "When the Dissent Creates the Law: Cross-Cutting Majorities and the Prediction Model of Precedent," 58 Emory Law Journal 207 (2009).
268. Glen Staszewski, "Textualism and the Executive Branch," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 143, 146, 171-173.
269. James J. Brudney, "Congressional Commentary on Judicial Interpretation of Statutes: Idle Chatter or Telling Response?" 93 Michigan Law Review 1 (1994).
270. Cass R. Sunstein, "On Analogical Reasoning," 106 Harvard Law Review 741, 746-748 (1993).
271. Michael C. Dorf, "The Supreme Court 1997 Term, Foreword: The Limits of Socratic Deliberation," 112 Harvard Law Review 4 (1998).
272. Frank H. Easterbrook, "Judicial Discretion in Statutory Interpretation," 57 Oklahoma Law Review 1, 3-4, 10, 18 (2004).
273. Emily Sherwin, "A Defense of Analogical Reasoning in Law," 66 University of Chicago Law Review 1179, 1186-1189 (1999).
274. Cass R. Sunstein, "Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State," 103 Harvard Law Review 405, 456-458 (1989).
275. Sandra Beth Zellmer, "Sacrificing Legislative Integrity at the Altar of Appropriations Riders: A Constitutional Crisis," 21 Harvard Environmental Law Review 457, 499-507 (1997).
276. J. R. Hicks, "The Foundations of Welfare Economics," 49 Economics Journal 696 (1939).
277. Nicholas Kaldor, "Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," 40 Economics Journal 549 (1939).
278. Samuel Estreicher and Richard L. Revesz, "Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies," 98 Yale Law Journal 679 (1989).
279. Lon Fuller, "Positivism and Fidelity to Law-a Reply to Professor Hart," 71 Harvard Law Review 630, 664 (1958).
280. Ronald Dworkin, "Seven Critics," 11 Georgia Law Review 1201 (1977).
281. Richard A. Posner, "The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication," 8 Hofstra Law Review 487 (1980).
282. Anthony T. Kronman, "Wealth Maximization as a Normative Principle," 9 Journal of Legal Studies 227 (1980).
283. David Shapiro, "Continuity and Change in Statutory Interpretation," 67 New York University Law Review 921, 925 (1992).
284. Geoffrey Miller, "Pragmatics and the Maxims of Interpretation," 1990 Wisconsin Law Review 1179 (1990).
285. Stephen A. Smith, Contract Theory (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004).
286. John F. Manning, "Putting Legislative History to a Vote: A Response to Professor Siegel," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1529 (2000).
287. Max Radin, "Statutory Interpretation," 43 Harvard Law Review 863, 873 (1930).
288. Sylvan H. Hirsch, "Limited Liability of Innkeepers under Statutory Regulations," 76 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 272, 273 (1928).
289. Richard S. Markovits, "Legal Analysis and the Economic Analysis of Allocative Efficiency," 8 Hofstra Law Review 811, 853-856 (1980).
290. Peter L. Strauss, "The Courts and Congress: Should Judges Disclaim Political History?," 98 Columbia Law Review 242, 257-261 (1998).
291. Matthew C. Stephenson and Adrian Vermeule, "Chevron Has Only One Step," 95 Virginia Law Review 597 (2009).
292. Kenneth A. Bamberger and Peter L. Strauss, "Chevron's Two Steps," 95 Virginia Law Review 611, 624-625 (2009).
293. Francis Watt, "Inn and Innkeeper," in Hugh Chisholm, ed., 14 Encyclopedia Brittanica 575, 576 (11th ed., Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, 1910-11).
294. Nicholas S. Zeppos, "Legislative History and the Interpretation of Statutes: Toward a Fact-Finding Model of Statutory Interpretation," 76 Virginia Law Review 1295, 1313 (1990).
295. Peter J. Smith, "Textualism and Jurisdiction," 108 Columbia Law Review 1883 (2008).
296. Ruth Sullivan, "Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada," 30 Ottawa Law Review 175 (1998-1999).
297. Jody S. Kraus, "From Langdell to Law and Economics: Two Conceptions of Stare Decisis in Contract Law and Theory," 94 Virginia Law Review 157 (2008).
298. John F. Manning, "Deriving Rules of Statutory Interpretation from the Constitution," 101 Columbia Law Review 1648, 1677-1680 (2001).
299. Joseph Raz, The Authority of Law 187-188 (New York, Oxford University Press, 1979).
300. Richard A. Danner, "Justice Jackson's Lament: Historical and Comparative Perspective on the Availability of Legislative History," 13 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 151, 192-193 (2003).
301. Henry Paul Monaghan, "On Avoiding Avoidance, Agenda Control, and Related Matters," 112 Columbia Law Review 665, 675 (2012).
302. Jack M. Beermann, "End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should Be Overruled," 42 Connecticut Law Review 779, 809-835 (2010).
303. Michael E. Bratman, "Shared Intentions," in Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency 109 (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1999).
304. Harry Willmer Jones, "The Plain Meaning Rule and Extrinsic Aids in the Interpretation of Federal Statutes," 25 Washington University Law Quarterly 2, 5 (1939).
305. Jonathan R. Macey, "Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model," 86 Columbia Law Review 223 (1986).
306. Richard A. Posner, "Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and the Interpretation of Statutes and the Constitution," 37 Case Western. Reserve Law Review 179 (1986-87).
307. William N. Eskridge, Jr. and Lauren E. Baer, "The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretation from Chevron to Hamdan," 96 Georgetown Law Journal 1083 (2008).
308. Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein, "Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron," 73 University of Chicago Law Review 823 (2006).
309. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Dynamic Statutory Interpretation 16 (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1994).
310. Stephen Breyer, "Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy," 38 Administrative Law Review 363, 370-382 (1986).
311. Antonin Scalia, "Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law," 1989 Duke Law Journal 511, 516-517.
312. Daniel A. Farber, "Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Supremacy," 78 Georgetown Law Journal 281, 289 (1989).
313. Robert A. Skitol, "The Shifting Sands of Antitrust Policy: Where It Has Been, Where It Is Now, Where It Will Be in Its Third Century," 9 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 239, 240 (1999).
314. Daniel A. Farber and Philip P. Frickey, "Legislative Intent and Public Choice," 74 Virginia Law Review 423 (1988).
315. Johnny C. Parker, "Equal Protection Minus Strict Scrutiny Plus Benign Classification Equals What? Equality of Opportunity," 11 Pace Law Review 213, 218 (1991).
316. Lisa Schultz Bressman, "Chevron's Mistake," 58 Duke Law Journal 549, 575-583 (2009).
317. Gillian E. Metzger, "Administrative Law as the New Federalism," 57 Duke Law Journal 2023 (2008).
318. Kenneth A. Bamberger, "Normative Canons in the Reviews of Administrative Policymaking," 118 Yale Law Journal 64 (2008).
319. Lawrence M. Solan, "Statutory Inflation and Institutional Choice," 44 William and Mary Law Review 2209, 2212-2249 (2003).
320. Jennifer L. Zamzow and Shaun Nichols, "Variations in Ethical Intuitions," 19 Philosophical Issues 368 (2009).
321. Paul Brest, "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding," 60 Boston University Law Review 204, 209-213 (1980)
322. Miriam R. Jorgensen and Kenneth A. Shepsle, "A Comment on the Positive Canons Project," 57 Law and Contemporary Problems 43, 46-48 (1994).
323. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, "Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation," 115 Harvard Law Review 2085, 2087-88 (2002).
324. Jonathan R. Siegel, "The Use of Legislative History in a System of Separated Powers," 53 Vanderbilt Law Review 1457, 1479-80 (2000).
325. Paul A. Freund, "Rationality in Judicial Decisions," in Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Nomos VIII: Rational Decision 109, 111, 119-120 (Palo Alto, Atherton Press, 1964).
326. John F. Manning, "What Divides Textualists From Purposivists?" 106 Columbia Law Review 70, 78 (2006).
327. Ethan J. Leib and Michael Serota, "The Costs of Consensus in Statutory Construction," 120 Yale Law Journal Online 47 (2010).
328. James J. Brudney, "Below the Surface: Comparing Legislative History Usage by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court," 85 Washington University Law Review 1, 11-12 (2007).
329. John F. Manning, "The Absurdity Doctrine," 116 Harvard Law Review 2387 (2003).
330. Peter M. Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1188 (2007).
331. William N. Eskridge, Jr., and Philip P. Frickey, "Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning," 42 Stanford Law Review 321 (1990).
332. Caleb Nelson, "A Response to Professor Manning," 91 Virginia Law Review 451, 464-465 (2005).
333. Frank H. Easterbrook, "The Court and the Economic System," 98 Harvard Law Review 4, 14-18 (1983).
334. Jonathan A. Macey, "Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model," 86 Columbia Law Review 223 (1986).
335. Caleb Nelson, "Statutory Interpretation and Decision Theory," 74 University of Chicago Law Review 329, 331 (2007).
336. Jonathan R. Siegel, "Judicial Interpretation in the Cost-Benefit Crucible," 92 Minnesota Law Review 387, 389 (2007).
337. Kent Greenawalt, "The Nature of Rules and the Meaning of Meaning," 72 Notre Dame Law Review 1449, 1462-1469 (1997).
338. Amanda L. Tyler, "Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons," 99 Northwestern University Law Review 1389, 1413 (2005).
339. Elizabeth Garrett, "Preferences, Laws, and Default Rules," 122 Harvard Law Review 2104, 2114-2119 (2009).
340. Stephen F. Ross, "Statutory Interpretation in the Courtroom, the Classroom, and Canadian Legal Literature," 31 Ottawa Law Review 39 (1999-2000).
341. Daniel J. Meador Lecture: Court or Tribunal? Federal Courts and the Common Law," 53 Alabama Law Review 891, 897 (2002).
342. Kristen David Adams, "The Folly of Uniformity? Lessons from the Restatement Movement," 33 Hofstra Law Review 423 (2004).
343. Mortimer N.S. Sellers, "The Doctrine of Precedent in the United States of America," 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 67, 74 (2006).
344. Peter Tiersma, "The Textualization of Precedent," 82 Notre Dame Law Review 1187 (2007).
345. Evan H. Caminker, "Why Must Inferior Courts Obey Superior Court Precedents?," 46 Stanford Law Review 817 (1994).
346. William D. Popkin, "The Collaborative Model of Statutory Interpretation," 61 Southern California Law Review 541 (1988).
347. Ellen E. Sward, "Justification and Doctrinal Evaluation," 37 Connecticut Law Review 389 (2004).
348. Walter V. Schaefer, "Precedent and Policy," 34 University of Chicago Law Review 3, 8 (1966).
349. David Shapiro, "In Defense of Judicial Candor," 100 Harvard Law Review 731 (1987).
350. Roscoe Pound, "Common Law and Legislation," 21 Harvard Law Review 383 (1908).
351. Harlan Fiske Stone, "The Common Law in the United States," 50 Harvard Law Review 4 (1936).
352. Robert F. Williams, "Statutes as Sources of Law Beyond Their Terms in Common-Law Cases," 50 George Washington Law Review 554, 557 (1982).
353. Peter L. Strauss, "The Common Law and Statutes," 70 University of Colorado Law Review 225 (1999).
354. Thomas W. Merrill, "The Common Law Powers of Federal Courts," 52 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1988).
355. William S. Blatt, "The History of Statutory Interpretation: A Study in Form and Substance," 6 Cardozo Law Review 799 (1985).
356. Todd D. Rakoff, "Statutory Interpretation as a Multifarious Enterprise," 104 Northwestern Law Review 1559 (2010).
357. William N. Eskridge, Jr. and John Ferejohn, A Republic of Statutes (New Haven, Yale University Press, 2010).
358. Frederick Schauer, Book Review: "Is the Common Law Law?," 77 California Law Review 455 (1989).
359. Kristen David Adams, "The Folly of Uniformity? Lessons from the Restatement Movement," 33 Hofstra Law Review 423 (2004).
360. Mortimer N.S. Sellers, "The Doctrine of Precedent in the United States of America," 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 67, 74 (2006).
361. Daniel J. Meador Lecture: Court or Tribunal? Federal Courts and the Common Law," 53 Alabama Law Review 891, 897 (2002).
362. Mortimer N.S. Sellers, "The Doctrine of Precedent in the United States of America," 54 American Journal of Comparative Law 67, 74 (2006).
363. Reed Dickerson, The Interpretation and Application of Statutes 137 (Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1975).
364. Harry Wilmer Jones, "Extrinsic Aids in the Federal Courts," 25 Iowa Law Review 737, 753-754 (1940).
365. John F. Manning, "Textualism and the Equity of the Statute," 101 Columbia Law Review 1, 109 (2001).
366. Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, "Defining Dicta," 57 Stanford Law Review 953 (2005).
367. John F. Manning, "Textualism as a Nondelegation Doctrine," 97 Columbia Law Review 673 (1997).
368. Michael Herz, "Purposivism and Institutional Competence in Statutory Interpretation," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 89, 90-91.
369. Caleb Nelson, "What Is Textualism?," 91 Virginia Law Review 347, 349 (2005).
370. Stephen Breyer, "On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes," 65 Southern California Law Review 845 (1992).
371. Arthur L. Goodhart, "Determining the Ratio Decidendi of a Case," 40 Yale Law Journal 161 (1930).
372. Jack Goldsmith and John F. Manning, "The President's Completion Power," 115 Yale Law Journal 2280, 2298-2301 (2006).
373. Jules Coleman, "Economics and the Law: A Critical Review of the Foundations of the Economic Approach to Law," 94 Ethics 649 (1984).
374. Nicholas S. Zeppos, "Legislative History and the Interpretation of Statutes: Toward a Fact-Finding Model of Statutory Interpretation," 76 Virginia Law Review 1295, 1313 (1990).
375. Peter J. Smith, "Textualism and Jurisdiction," 108 Columbia Law Review 1883 (2008).
376. Thomas W. Merrill, "Textualism and the Future of the Chevron Doctrine," 72 Washington University Law Quarterly 351 (1994).
377. Ruth Sullivan, "Statutory Interpretation in the Supreme Court of Canada," 30 Ottawa Law Review 175 (1998-1999).
378. Lisa Schultz Bressman, "Reclaiming the Legal Fiction of Congressional Delegation," 97 Virginia Law Review 2009 (2011).
379. Ronald Dworkin, "Law as Interpretation," 60 Texas Law Review 527, 531 (1982).
380. Jerry L. Mashaw, "Norms, Practices, and the Paradox of Deference: A Preliminary Inquiry into Agency Statutory Interpretation," 57 Administrative Law Review 501, 542 (2005).
381. Kevin M. Stack, "Agency Statutory Interpretation and Policymaking Form," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 225, 233.
382. Peter L. Strauss, in "The Place of Agencies in Government: Separation of Powers and the Fourth Branch," 84 Columbia Law Review 573 (1984).
383. Peter L. Strauss, "When the Judge Is Not the Primary Official with Responsibility to Read: Agency Interpretation and the Problem of Legislative History," 66 Chicago-Kent Law Review 321, 322-325 (1990).
384. Jonathan R. Siegel, "Guardians of the Background Principles," 2009 Michigan State Law Review, 123-124. In an earlier article, "Textualism and Contextualism in Administrative Law," 78 Boston University Law Review 1023 (1998).
385. Glen Staszewski, "Textualism and the Executive Branch," 2009 Michigan State Law Review 143, 146, 171-173.
386. Frank H. Easterbrook, "Judicial Discretion in Statutory Interpretation," 57 Oklahoma Law Review 1, 3-4, 10, 18 (2004).
387. Samuel Estreicher and Richard L. Revesz, "Nonacquiescence by Federal Administrative Agencies," 98 Yale Law Journal 679 (1989).
388. Emily Hammond Meazell, "Deference and Dialogue in Administrative Law," 111 Columbia Law Review 1722 (2011).
389. Matthew C. Stephenson and Adrian Vermeule, "Chevron Has Only One Step," 95 Virginia Law Review 597 (2009).
390. Kenneth A. Bamberger and Peter L. Strauss, "Chevron's Two Steps," 95 Virginia Law Review 611, 624-625 (2009).
391. Jack M. Beermann, "End the Failed Chevron Experiment Now: How Chevron Has Failed and Why It Can and Should Be Overruled," 42 Connecticut Law Review 779, 809-835 (2010).
392. Thomas W. Merrill, "Textualism and the Future of the Chevron Doctrine," 72 Washington University Law Quarterly 351 (1994).
393. Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein, "Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy? An Empirical Investigation of Chevron," 73 University of Chicago Law Review 823 (2006).
394. Stephen Breyer, "Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy," 38 Administrative Law Review 363, 370-382 (1986).