Resolving Ambiguity: The Continued Relevance of Legislative History in an Era of Textualism (Feb. 11, 2019) by John Cannan “argues that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s decision in Allina Health Servs. v. Price, 863 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2017), currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, was the correct one, but only by chance. Kavanagh based his ruling on subjective textualism. Congress’ true intent for the provision at issue, 42 U.S.C. 1395hh(a)(2), can be found in legislative history that has gone largely overlooked. This paper examines this history and shows how legislative history, in general, should, at the very least, continue to be persuasive evidence of statutory meaning.”
- Tech Advances Cause BigLaw Firm to Offer Buyout to All Legal Secretaries
- The Seven Patterns of AI
- Does Peer Review or Bibliometrics Better Predict Scholarly Impact?
- Maintaining Scholarly Integrity in the Age of Bibliometrics
- Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It
- Are Concurring Opinions Justifiable?
- First Law Prof Rankings of Citations in Non-Law Journals
- The Rise of the Big Four Accounting Firms Move into Legal Services
- The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence
- Buying Machine Learning Algorithms
Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.
- 226,383 hits