Debate on Interpretive Methodology in Statutory Cases: Uniformity and Stare Decisis, Study notes of Law

Download Debate on Interpretive Methodology in Statutory Cases: Uniformity and Stare Decisis and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! 209 THE DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION GLEN STASZEWSKI ∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 210 I. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE TREND ........................................................ 215 A. Codified Rules of Statutory Interpretation .................................. 216 B. Methodological Stare Decisis ...................................................... 217 C. Lower Standards for Lower Courts ............................................. 219 D. No Frills Textualism .................................................................... 222 E. Reading Law ................................................................................ 224 F. Interpretive Regimes .................................................................... 225 II. DRIVERS OF THE TREND ...................................................................... 226 A. The Perceived Need to Constrain Judicial Discretion ................ 226 B. The Perceived Need for Clarity and Predictability ..................... 228 C. The Traditional Legal Sources of Interpretive Methodology ................................................................................ 230 D. Interpretation As Constructed Meaning ...................................... 234 III. REEVALUATING THE ASSUMPTIONS .................................................... 236 A. The Importance of Avoiding Domination .................................... 237 B. The Value of Practical Reasoning and Diversity ........................ 242 C. The Modern Legal Hierarchy in the Regulatory State ................ 249 1. The Descriptive Hypothesis.................................................. 251 2. The Normative Thesis .......................................................... 253 3. Autonomous Versus Responsive Law .................................. 256 D. Interpretation As Contestatory Democracy ................................. 261 IV. REJECTING THE TREND ........................................................................ 262 A. Interpretive Guidance .................................................................. 263 B. Methodological Considerations .................................................. 267 ∗ Professor of Law & The A.J. Thomas Faculty Scholar, Michigan State University College of Law. I received thoughtful comments and suggestions on this project during faculty workshops at Florida International University College of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, the University of Richmond School of Law, and at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association. I am especially grateful for insightful comments on earlier drafts from Tabatha Abu El-Haj, Evan Criddle, Corinna Lain, and Kristen Osenga, and for research assistance from Ben Curl. Finally, I am thankful for the comments that Evan Criddle and I received on a related essay from Aaron Bruhl, Neal Devins, Bill Eskridge, Abbe Gluck, Ali Larsen, Chad Oldfather, and Michael Sant’Ambrogio, which also proved extremely valuable in this Article’s development. 210 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 C. Percolation in the Lower Courts ................................................. 270 D. The Fatal Flaws of the New Textualisms ..................................... 276 E. Institutional Dialogues ................................................................ 277 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 278 This Article criticizes a recent movement toward making statutory interpretation simpler and more uniform. The trend is reflected by proposals to adopt codified rules of statutory interpretation, give stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology, use simpler methods of statutory interpretation in lower courts, and implement certain versions of textualism. This Article explains that such proposals are driven by an overarching desire to limit judicial discretion and promote a formal vision of the rule of law; they assume that the traditional hierarchy of legal sources is exclusive, and that statutory interpretation’s function is to ascertain the meaning of the law. This Article challenges each of these goals or assumptions by claiming, first, that instead of seeking to eliminate judicial discretion, the primary goal of statutory interpretation methodology should be to protect the people from the possibility of domination by the state. Second, the resolution of disputes regarding the permissible scope of governmental authority in difficult statutory cases requires the use of practical reasoning, and the quality of statutory law and its democratic legitimacy benefit from a broad range of arguments and diverse judicial perspectives. Third, the traditional hierarchy of legal sources is outdated, and “interpretive methodology” and “agency decision-making” should be viewed as distinct forms of law that merit their own special places in a new legal hierarchy for the regulatory state. Finally, the central function of statutory interpretation by federal courts in the modern regulatory state is to provide individuals and groups with opportunities to contest the validity of particular exercises of governmental authority, rather than to ascertain the meaning of the law in a vacuum. This Article therefore argues that the recent proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation are fundamentally misguided, and it closes by making several related observations about the extent to which interpretive methodology can or should be simple or uniform. In sum, provisional dialogues by and among different centers of power better reflect the nature of law in the modern regulatory state than artificial efforts to achieve simple, predictable, or uniform final answers to our most pressing legal or social problems. INTRODUCTION In the early 1980s, a prominent legal scholar observed that “[t]he general contemporary American view of statutory interpretation is that there is not a great deal to say about the subject. As a result, nothing else as important in the law receives so little attention.”1 There has been a dramatic revival of interest 1 Robert Weisberg, The Calabresian Judicial Artist: Statutes and the New Legal Process, 35 STAN. L. REV. 213, 213 (1983), quoted in WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. ET AL., LEGISLATION 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 213 This Article argues that the dumbing down of statutory interpretation is fundamentally misguided, and that the recent calls for simplification and uniformity should be rejected. After describing the foregoing proposals in greater detail,19 this Article identifies the common goals or assumptions that appear to be driving recent calls for reform.20 First, the advocates of such proposals are seeking to limit and constrain judicial discretion in the service of widespread visions of legislative supremacy and democratic legitimacy. Second, they are trying to demand greater clarity and predictability in interpretive methodology to promote “the rule of law as a law of rules.”21 Third, the advocates of such reforms generally assume that interpretive methodology is a form of “law,” and they rely on the traditional hierarchy of legal sources (namely, the Constitution, statutes, and common law) for the proposition that interpretive methodology must either be constitutional law or common law. Accordingly, they either contend that their proposals are constitutionally mandated22 or that interpretive methodology is judicially created common law that could be overridden by statute,23 and should, in any event, be treated as binding precedent or explicitly overruled.24 Finally, the advocates of such proposals reflexively assume that statutory interpretation’s function is to ascertain the meaning of the law. The judiciary necessarily performs this function by selecting and applying available interpretive rules. If courts were to follow (and, better yet, if they were required to follow) a consistent and uniform set of interpretive rules, we could simplify the interpretive process, minimize judicial discretion, and improve the clarity and predictability of legal meaning. It is, thus, easy to see why so many scholars and judges would jump on this bandwagon.25 accusing them of “dumbing down” the scholarly literature on statutory interpretation. On the contrary, this is some of the most sophisticated, thoughtful, and impressive work in the field, and it has greatly enlivened the discourse on statutory interpretation and generated important new lines of inquiry. My claim is merely that if these proposals were adopted, the intended effect would be to “dumb down” the practice of statutory interpretation in the courts. I argue that this would be an unfortunate result for the reasons developed in the Article. 19 See infra Part I. 20 See infra Part II. 21 See Scalia, supra note 17. 22 See SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15, at 23-24; see also John F. Manning, Textualism and the Equity of the Statute, 101 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 8 (2001) (claiming that the American constitutional structure compels central aspects of textualism). 23 See Rosenkranz, supra note 11, at 2156 (“[T]he judicial power over this area may, like any other federal common lawmaking power, be trumped by Congress.”). 24 See generally Foster, supra note 12; Gluck, supra note 12. 25 Cf. William N. Eskridge, Jr., Norms, Empiricism, and Canons in Statutory Interpretation, 66 U. CHI. L. REV. 671, 679 (1999) (“Few would object to the overall goal of making the law more predictable, objective, and so forth.”). 214 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 This Article aims to dampen this enthusiasm by reevaluating each of the preceding goals or assumptions.26 First, it claims that instead of seeking to eliminate judicial discretion, the primary goal of statutory interpretation methodology should be to protect the people from the possibility of arbitrary domination by the state.27 While this vision of statutory interpretation respects the principle of legislative supremacy,28 it also promotes an understanding of freedom and democracy that is more robust and attainable than the competing views underlying the traditional faithful agent models.29 Second, this Article recognizes that the advantages of rule-based decision-making should be respected. It claims, however, that the resolution of disputes regarding the permissible scope of governmental authority in difficult statutory cases requires the use of practical reasoning,30 and that the quality of statutory law and its democratic legitimacy substantially benefit from a broad range of arguments and diverse judicial perspectives.31 Third, this Article suggests that the traditional hierarchy of legal sources is outdated in the modern regulatory state, and proposes that “interpretive methodology” and “agency decision- making” are distinct forms of law that merit their own special places in the following new legal hierarchy: (1) Constitution, (2) interpretive methodology, (3) statutes, (4) agency action, (5) common law. Moreover, unlike traditional sources of law, which are traditionally viewed as fixed, these “new” forms of law are, by definition, provisional. From this perspective, Congress cannot dictate binding rules of statutory interpretation to the judiciary, and one court cannot ordinarily dictate the interpretive methodology of its successors. Finally, this Article claims that the central function of statutory interpretation by federal courts in the modern regulatory state is to provide individuals and groups with opportunities to contest the validity of particular exercises of governmental authority.32 If courts were to follow (or, worse yet, if they were required to follow) a consistent and uniform set of interpretive rules, statutory interpretation could no longer perform its central function in the modern 26 See infra Part III. 27 See Glen Staszewski, Statutory Interpretation As Contestatory Democracy, 55 WM. & MARY L. REV. 221, 245-49 (2013). 28 See id. at 249, 252-53, 258. 29 For a political theoretical account of this understanding of freedom and democracy, see PHILIP PETTIT, REPUBLICANISM: A THEORY OF FREEDOM AND GOVERNMENT 177-78 (1997), and Philip Pettit, Republican Freedom and Contestatory Democratization, in DEMOCRACY’S VALUE 164-83 (Ian Shapiro & Casiano Hacker-Cardón eds., 1999). 30 See William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Statutory Interpretation As Practical Reasoning, 42 STAN. L. REV. 321 (1990). 31 See Ethan J. Leib & Michael Serota, The Costs of Consensus in Statutory Interpretation, 120 YALE L.J. ONLINE 47 (2010), http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the- costs-of-consensus-in-statutory-construction, archived at http://perma.cc/89S6-GRY6 (“Dissensus creates a system of open deliberation that has a significant impact on our legal system and creates tangible benefits.”). 32 See Staszewski, supra note 27. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 215 regulatory state, and the people would be subject to potential domination in ways that would severely undermine democracy. After setting forth these contrasting views of statutory interpretation, this Article returns to the recent proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation and provides the following observations. First, while Congress is certainly free to provide the federal judiciary with interpretive guidance, the vast majority of codified rules of statutory interpretation cannot bind the courts. Second, while the federal judiciary should treat prior methodological decisions with an appropriate degree of respect, those prior decisions will only provide non- binding, methodological considerations in future cases. Third, the nature of the interpretive arguments that can be presented by parties and relied upon by lower courts should not be artificially restricted. The resource constraints on lower federal courts are likely overstated in this context, and limits on their decision-making competence are better resolved by allowing statutory issues to percolate within the federal judicial system than by attempting to restrict access to relevant and potentially persuasive information. Fourth, textualism’s dogmatic focus on ascertaining “what the law as enacted meant”33 is fundamentally misguided because it eliminates the contestatory dimension of statutory interpretation. This problem is significantly compounded when courts purport to rely on artificial decision-making frameworks34 or refuse to conduct meaningful review of administrative action.35 Finally, there is already an “interpretive regime” that provides sufficient guidance to Congress regarding how its work is likely to be interpreted. The contrary position is based on an outdated and deeply erroneous view of the nature of law and the function of statutory interpretation. In sum, provisional dialogues by and among different centers of power better reflect the nature of law in the modern regulatory state than artificial efforts to achieve simple, predictable, and uniform final answers to our most pressing legal or social problems. I. MANIFESTATIONS OF THE TREND The trend that is the focus of this Article is reflected by a variety of recent intellectual movements and scholarly proposals. The main unifying principle is a belief that statutory interpretation methodology is currently too complicated, inconsistent, and unpredictable. This is largely the case because the methodology that is used by federal courts to interpret statutes is generally not treated as a traditional form of “law,” and judges are therefore permitted to use whatever interpretive methodology they prefer to resolve each particular case.36 For example, a judge may examine the legislative history of a statute in 33 See, e.g., Johnson v. Transp. Agency of Santa Clara City, Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 671 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 34 Cf. Gluck, supra note 8, at 1771-1811 (providing examples of states that have adopted “controlling interpretive frameworks”). 35 See VERMEULE, supra note 14, at 183 (advocating strong deference to agencies). 36 This description of the current situation and the following example are borrowed from 218 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 than that it be settled right.”53 Stare decisis requires the Supreme Court to follow its own precedents in the absence of a “special justification,” and it also requires lower courts to adhere strictly to the prior decisions of higher courts.54 Moreover, the conventional wisdom is that prior interpretations of statutes by federal courts are entitled to “super-strong” stare decisis effect, partly because Congress could amend a statute to override an erroneous or outdated judicial decision.55 Notwithstanding widespread support for the doctrine of stare decisis on substantive statutory issues, however, federal courts generally do not give stare decisis effect to their methodological decisions in statutory interpretation cases.56 Several scholars have recently recognized that “the doctrine of stare decisis is tailor-made” to provide the consistency and predictability “that are notoriously lacking in statutory interpretation doctrine,” and they have argued that federal courts should give stare decisis effect to their decisions regarding interpretive methodology.57 Thus, Sydney Foster has argued not only that this course of action would provide the same benefits that are provided by the application of stare decisis to substantive decisions, but that giving stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology would serve a valuable coordinating function that is largely unnecessary in the substantive-law context.58 Accordingly, Foster claims that courts should give even stronger stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology than is provided to substantive decisions.59 Similarly, Abbe Gluck argues that “settling on a consistent approach is a worthy goal for statutory interpreters.”60 Based on her examination of the experiences of several states,61 Gluck contends that “judges can and do bind other judges’ methodological choices, in the same way they bind one another 53 Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 54 Foster, supra note 12, at 1864 n.3. 55 See William N. Eskridge, Jr., Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 GEO. L.J. 1361, 1362 (1988). 56 See Foster, supra note 12, at 1866, 1872-84; Philip P. Frickey, Interpretive-Regime Change, 38 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1971, 1974-81 (2005); Gluck, supra note 8, at 1765; Jonathan R. Siegel, The Polymorphic Principle and the Judicial Role in Statutory Interpretation, 84 TEX. L. REV. 339, 385-86 (2005). 57 Foster, supra note 12, at 1866. 58 Id. at 1886-97. 59 Id. at 1867-69; see also Connors, supra note 12, at 683 (arguing that “extending stare decisis to statutory interpretation subdecisions might enhance” communication between the judicial and legislative branches). 60 Gluck, supra note 8, at 1848; see also id. at 1846-61 (offering a normative defense of consistent approaches to statutory interpretation more generally). 61 Id. at 1771-1811 (providing case studies of several states that have adopted “controlling interpretive frameworks” and that have given their methodological decisions stare decisis effect). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 219 with respect to substantive preferences.”62 Both Foster and Gluck point out that the judiciary gives stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology in various other legal contexts, and they suggest that rules of statutory interpretation should not be treated any differently.63 Indeed, Gluck claims that interpretive methodology is given stare decisis effect when federal courts review the legality of agency decision-making under Chevron and its progeny;64 and there is also precedent for treating interpretive methodology as precedent in other countries.65 Foster and Gluck therefore advocate the development of a relatively uniform and predictable set of interpretive rules for federal courts,66 which could be established by giving stare decisis effect to methodological decisions in statutory interpretation. C. Lower Standards for Lower Courts The advocates of the foregoing proposals appear to expect that they would be creating a uniform and predictable set of interpretive rules that would be binding on all federal courts. The Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation would therefore presumably apply in the Supreme Court as well as in the lower 62 Id. at 1823. 63 See Foster, supra note 12, at 1900-01 (“[T]he law sometimes does impose constraints on ‘how judges think,’ directing them on questions of contract interpretation, weighing evidence when making factual determinations, and implementing constitutional provisions.”); Gluck, supra note 12, at 1968 (“[M]any of these other interpretive regimes— including rules of contract and trust interpretation, choice of law, and even some constitutional law regimes—share key characteristics with the rules of statutory interpretation.”). 64 Abbe R. Gluck, The Federal Common Law of Statutory Interpretation: Erie for the Age of Statutes, 54 WM. & MARY L. REV. 753, 798-801 (2013). But cf. Connor N. Raso & William N. Eskridge, Jr., Chevron As a Canon, Not a Precedent: An Empirical Study of What Motivates Justices in Agency Deference Cases, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1727, 1727 (2010) (examining the Supreme Court’s deference doctrine since Chevron and finding that “the Justices generally do not give deference-regime precedents anything close to stare decisis effect”). 65 See, e.g., James J. Brudney, The Story of Pepper v. Hart: Examining Legislative History Across the Pond, in STATUTORY INTERPRETATION STORIES 258-94 (William N. Eskridge, Jr. et al. eds., 2011) (describing legislative history’s treatment in Britain and making comparisons with the United States). 66 While Foster would accord “extra-strong” precedential weight to methodological decisions in statutory interpretation, Foster, supra note 12, at 1868, Gluck suggests that methodological decisions “might occupy a place on that spectrum of law, perhaps meriting lower precedential weight in order to give judges the ability to evolve interpretive doctrine over time and respond to changes in the legislative process . . . .” Gluck, supra note 12, at 1917-18. Gluck has more recently suggested that interpretive doctrine might be “tailored” so that different approaches would apply to different statutes or different areas of law. See Lisa Schultz Bressman & Abbe R. Gluck, Statutory Interpretation From the Inside—An Empirical Study of Congressional Drafting, Delegation, and the Canons: Part II, 66 STAN. L. REV. 725, 797-800 (2014). 220 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 federal courts, and the normal rules of horizontal and vertical stare decisis would presumably extend to methodological decisions in statutory interpretation. Aaron Bruhl has recently argued, however, that “[s]tatutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court,” and “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.”67 Bruhl identifies three types of institutional differences among courts that may counsel in favor of distinct interpretive methodologies. First, he suggests that a court’s place in the judicial hierarchy could properly influence how it approaches statutory interpretation.68 For example, some theories and doctrines of statutory interpretation are predicated upon the legislature’s ability to amend a statute in response to the judiciary’s decision.69 Yet Bruhl points out that Congress is typically much more likely to learn about a Supreme Court decision on a particular topic than a decision by a federal district court.70 Accordingly, theories and doctrines that depend upon anticipated legislative responses may be more appropriate for the Supreme Court (and higher state courts71) than for lower federal courts.72 Second, Bruhl points out that “[t]he Supreme Court decides relatively few cases, and each one is the product of massive investment of public and private time and effort,”73 whereas lower courts “decide many, many more cases, and they do so with smaller staffs,” weaker or more variable briefing, fewer amicus briefs, and little or no opportunity for collaboration with colleagues.74 He claims that these resource disparities could properly lead lower courts to use interpretive methodologies that differ in some respects from those of the Supreme Court.75 Finally, Bruhl argues that differences in judicial selection could potentially justify differences in interpretive methodology.76 He points out that federal judges receive life 67 Bruhl, supra note 13, at 433. 68 Id. at 458. 69 See, e.g., Einer Elhauge, Preference-Eliciting Statutory Default Rules, 102 COLUM. L. REV. 2162 (2002); see also Eskridge, supra note 55, at 1409 (explaining that federal courts traditionally give especially strong stare decisis effect to interpretive decisions because Congress could amend a statute to overrule an erroneous or problematic decision). 70 Bruhl, supra note 13, at 459. 71 It is widely recognized that state court judges may have closer ties to the state legislature and other elected officials than most federal judges. See, e.g., ROBERT F. WILLIAMS, THE LAW OF AMERICAN STATE CONSTITUTIONS 299-301 (2009); Bruhl, supra note 13, at 462-63. 72 See Bruhl, supra note 13, at 459-63. 73 Id. at 470. 74 Id. at 471-72. 75 Id. at 470-86. 76 Id. at 486-94. For a comprehensive treatment of this issue, which focuses primarily on the potential relevance of judicial elections to interpretive methodology, see Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl & Ethan J. Leib, Elected Judges and Statutory Interpretation, 79 U. CHI. L. REV. 1215 (2012). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 223 legal system, while providing only speculative benefits in return. Vermeule therefore concludes that those methods of statutory interpretation should not be used for institutional reasons. He calls for “interpretive modesty” from the judiciary, which would push its methodology “toward rules rather than standards, and toward a relatively small, tractable, and cheap set of interpretive tools rather than a relatively large, complex, and expensive set.”91 In contrast to his skeptical view of the institutional capacity of courts, Vermeule has a great deal of confidence in the ability of administrative agencies to use a wide range of interpretive resources effectively and to determine when it is worthwhile to look beyond the surface meaning of statutory text.92 He therefore proposes a two-step approach to statutory interpretation by the judiciary. First, he claims that “[w]hen the statutory text directly at hand is clear and specific, judges should stick close to its surface or apparent meaning, eschewing the use of other tools to enrich their sense of meaning, intentions, or purposes.”93 Second, he contends that “[w]hen the statutory text at hand is ambiguous or vague, judges should defer to the interpretations of administrative agencies or executive agents rather than attempting to fill in gaps or ambiguities by reference to other sources.”94 Vermeule also argues that “judges should apply a strong doctrine of statutory precedent, subject, however, to defeasance by later administrative interpretations.”95 Because Vermeule’s proposed methodology would preclude courts from considering “legislative history, many of the canons of construction, and holistic textual comparison, which supplements or overrides the provisions at hand by reference to other provisions of the same or other statutes,”96 as well as other more dynamic or policy-oriented considerations, Bill Eskridge has aptly referred to this approach as “no frills textualism.”97 Vermeule’s proposed approach is, of course, also a vivid example of the recent trend toward the dumbing down of statutory interpretation. 91 Id. 92 See id. at 205-15 (discussing the institutional advantages that agencies have over courts in interpreting ambiguous statutes). 93 Id. at 183. 94 Id. 95 Id. 96 Id. 97 Eskridge, supra note 14, at 2043. For another critical review of Vermeule’s proposed approach, see Jonathan R. Siegel, Judicial Interpretation in the Cost-Benefit Crucible, 92 MINN. L. REV. 387 (2007). See also Richard A. Posner, Reply: The Institutional Dimension of Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation, 101 MICH. L. REV. 952 (2003) (criticizing Sunstein & Vermeule, supra note 85). 224 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 E. Reading Law Justice Antonin Scalia has been one of the most influential participants in the interpretive wars over the past thirty years.98 His recent book with Bryan Garner, Reading Law, provides a comprehensive statement of his textualist theory and preferred methodology.99 In particular, after providing an overview of the proposed approach, the treatise articulates and describes fifty-seven “sound principles of interpretation,” before “exposing” thirteen “falsehoods” about statutory interpretation. Thus, in an effort to provide “the first modern attempt, certainly in a century, to collect and arrange only the valid canons (perhaps a third of the possible candidates) and to show how and why they apply to proper legal interpretation,”100 the treatise boils statutory interpretation down to seventy principles or rules that should either be adopted or rejected by the judiciary. This effort to facilitate simplicity and uniformity in statutory interpretation is consistent with Justice Scalia’s earlier contention that “[o]ur highest responsibility in the field of statutory construction is to read the laws in a consistent way, giving Congress a sure means by which it may work the people’s will.”101 One could easily question the extent to which Justice Scalia’s textualism would, in practice, promote simplicity, uniformity, or consistency in statutory interpretation, given its heavy reliance on complex linguistic, historical, and holistic textual analysis, which may exceed the capacity of most judges.102 Nonetheless, Judge Easterbrook claims in the book’s foreword that the judiciary’s rate of agreement in statutory cases would undoubtedly be higher if Justice Scalia’s proposed methods were more widely followed, and the book is clearly a self-conscious effort to promote a single, relatively coherent set of interpretive rules for the federal courts.103 Indeed, the first sentence of the treatise contends that “[o]ur legal system must regain a mooring that it has lost: 98 See, e.g., ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW (Amy Gutmann et al. eds. 1997); see also Frickey, supra note 2, at 254-55 (crediting Scalia with helping to revive interest in statutory interpretation). 99 SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15. 100 Id. at 9 (footnote omitted). 101 Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 417 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also Gluck, supra note 8, at 1834 (recognizing that one of the most prominent goals of Justice Scalia’s new textualism is to promote “‘rule-of-law’ norms” and generate “a predictable, formalized approach that can clarify the interpretive process for legislatures, lower courts, and litigants”). 102 See VERMEULE, supra note 14, at 259 (“Even Antonin Scalia, one of originalism’s chief defenders, says that ‘[p]roperly done, the task requires the consideration of an enormous mass of material’ and ‘an evaluation of the reliability of the material’; in general originalism is ‘a task sometimes better suited to the historian than the lawyer.’” (citation omitted)). 103 Frank H. Easterbrook, Foreword to SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15, at xxiv. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 225 a generally agreed-on approach to the interpretation of legal texts.”104 Given his explicit aspiration to provide such an approach, it seems fair to include Justice Scalia’s textualism in general, and Reading Law in particular, as part of the broader trend toward the dumbing down of statutory interpretation. F. Interpretive Regimes The foregoing proposals or methods were all inspired to varying degrees by the insight that statutory interpretation doctrine can provide what John Ferejohn has called an “interpretive regime.”105 According to Bill Eskridge and Phillip Frickey, “[a]n interpretive regime is a system of background norms and conventions against which the Court will read statutes.”106 When such a regime is in place, it “tells lower court judges, agencies, and citizens how strings of words in statutes will be read, what presumptions will be entertained as to [a statute’s] scope and meaning, and what auxiliary materials might be consulted to resolve ambiguities.”107 Interpretive regimes facilitate coordination and promote the rule of law by lowering the costs of drafting for Congress and rendering the application of statutes more predictable.108 When the participants in the legislative process are familiar with the prevailing interpretive regime, they can more easily predict the impact of different statutory language and draft their statutes accordingly.109 Moreover, “by clarifying the background rules against which Congress is legislating, interpretive regimes aid in effectuating congressional intent.”110 Interpretive regimes are thereby thought to promote the judiciary’s ability to serve as a faithful agent of the legislature, which is traditionally viewed as the sine qua non of democratic legitimacy in statutory interpretation.111 Commentators with very different ideological and methodological orientations have recognized and embraced the value of having an established interpretive regime. Eskridge and Frickey originally touted the idea based on an understanding of statutory interpretation as practical reasoning—which contemplates the consideration of a wide range of evidence in the construction of statutory meaning.112 Other jurists and scholars have apparently concluded that if some uniformity, clarity, and predictability are beneficial, more of these things must be even better. They have therefore seized on the goal of 104 SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15, at xxvii. 105 Eskridge & Ferejohn, supra note 16, at 267; see also Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 16, at 66 (crediting Ferejohn with the term). 106 Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 16, at 66. 107 Id. 108 See id. at 66-67. 109 See id. at 67. 110 Foster, supra note 12, at 1887 (footnote omitted). 111 See infra Part II.A. 112 Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 16, at 56-57; see also Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 30. 228 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 were to adopt a consistent and predictable interpretive regime, it would be significantly easier for Congress to draft statutes that would accomplish its legal and policy objectives. This would, in turn, limit the policymaking discretion of federal courts in statutory interpretation. Not only would the use of simplified methods of statutory interpretation reduce the policymaking discretion of lower courts, but Professor Bruhl explicitly justifies his proposal on the grounds that lower court judges typically have a less meaningful policymaking mandate than elected judges with statewide constituencies or federal judges who are nominated and confirmed to serve on higher courts.126 If Congress were to enact Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, judicial discretion would be severely constrained, and the federal judiciary would be required to follow Congress’s “meta-intent” regarding the proper interpretation of statutes. Federal courts could therefore truly be said to be acting as the faithful agents of Congress during statutory interpretation, even if the text of any particular statute was ambiguous. Finally, if federal courts were to give stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology, they could eventually “fix” the rules and thereby eliminate judicial discretion to revisit the best approach to statutory interpretation on a case-by-case basis in the absence of a special justification.127 The dumbing down of statutory interpretation should therefore ultimately be understood as part of a broader strategy for justifying judicial power over statutory interpretation in a democracy. B. The Perceived Need for Clarity and Predictability Besides limiting judicial discretion, the proponents of the foregoing proposals are also trying to demand greater clarity and predictability in interpretive methodology to promote “the rule of law as a law of rules.”128 There is a widely recognized dichotomy between governance by “general rule of law” and “personal discretion to do justice” in each particular case.129 As explained above, interpretive methodology is currently treated by federal courts as an area in which judges are authorized to exercise “personal discretion to do justice” in each particular case.130 This is true because federal judges are permitted to decide on a case-by-case basis which interpretive methodology is most appropriate. The reform proposals at issue seek to 126 Bruhl, supra note 13, at 491-94. 127 Cf. Caleb Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedent, 87 VA. L. REV. 1, 8-21 (2001) (discussing the capacity of stare decisis to “fix” the meaning of otherwise ambiguous laws). 128 See Scalia, supra note 17. 129 Id. at 1175-76; see also Cass R. Sunstein, Problems with Rules, 83 CAL. L. REV. 953, 956-57 (1995) (discussing the difference between two different forms of legal judgment: the case-by-case model and the general rule model). There is, of course, a closely related debate on the merits of rules versus standards. See Kathleen M. Sullivan, The Supreme Court, 1991 Term—Foreword, The Justices of Rules and Standards, 106 HARV. L. REV. 22 (1992). 130 See supra note 36 and accompanying text. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 229 establish general rules of statutory interpretation and thereby shift interpretive methodology to the opposite side of this dichotomy. The arguments in favor of the reform proposals largely track the standard arguments that are made by enthusiasts for general rules. One of those arguments is that bright-line rules have the capacity to limit the discretion of the decision-makers who are responsible for implementing the law.131 The enactment of bright-line rules tends to be a particularly good strategy when lawmakers have different preferences from the officials who will be implementing a mandate or when the legislative process is thought to have superior democratic legitimacy.132 Of course, this benefit is closely tied to the goal of limiting judicial discretion, which is discussed in the previous section. In addition, the promulgation of general rules substantially limits decision costs because clear rules are significantly cheaper and easier to implement than ex post decisions based on every potentially relevant consideration.133 The promulgation of bright-line rules also provides advance notice of precisely what the law requires, which is particularly important in a modern regulatory state with widely dispersed authority.134 Bright-line rules also promote predictability, consistency, and uniformity in the application of law, and thereby facilitate planning.135 The promulgation and implementation of general rules is also thought to promote the rule of law in various other ways. For example, a uniform set of clear-cut rules helps to ensure that similarly situated people are treated alike and thereby limits the possibility of arbitrary discrimination by public officials who might otherwise implement the law in a biased or otherwise problematic way.136 Moreover, rule-based decision-making potentially minimizes shortsightedness and helps give public officials the courage to make difficult or unpopular decisions that will ultimately promote more enduring principles or values.137 Justice Scalia has argued that adherence to general rules also promotes the rule of law by providing the appearance of equal treatment because a rule’s authority can often provide a legitimate justification for a decision.138 General rules are also thought to facilitate collective decision- making in a pluralistic democracy because they can more easily produce incompletely theorized agreements at both the enactment and the 131 See Manning, supra note 22, at 70; see also FREDERICK SCHAUER, PLAYING BY THE RULES 98-99, 158-62 (1991). 132 See e.g., Scalia, supra note 17, at 1176 (“In a democratic system, of course, the general rule of law has special claim to preference, since it is the normal product of that branch of government most responsive to the people.”). 133 See Sunstein, supra note 129, at 972-73. 134 See Scalia, supra note 17, at 1179. 135 See id.; Sunstein, supra note 129, at 976. 136 See Sunstein, supra note 129, at 974-75. 137 See Scalia, supra note 17, at 1180; Sunstein, supra note 129, at 975-76. 138 Scalia, supra note 17, at 1178. 230 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 implementation stages.139 For example, judges might more readily agree on the “plain meaning” of a statutory provision than on whether a particular application furthers the statute’s underlying purposes or results in justice or good policy, all things considered.140 Finally, when general rules are reasonably clear and uniformly applied, it may be easier for the public to hold lawmakers accountable for their policy choices, and it may be correspondingly more difficult for wealthy or politically influential constituents to obtain “special treatment” through the legislative, administrative, or judicial processes.141 Given these potential advantages, it is not surprising that “extravagant enthusiasm for rules and an extravagantly rule-bound conception of the rule of law” is “a pervasive social phenomenon,”142 or that efforts to capitalize on the perceived advantages of general rules would become popular in statutory interpretation.143 As explained above, the proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation uniformly advocate the creation of a relatively simple or binding set of rules for statutory interpretation, which would allegedly provide greater clarity and predictability in the interpretive enterprise and thereby promote a relatively formal vision of the rule of law.144 C. The Traditional Legal Sources of Interpretive Methodology One of the most interesting and important aspects of Abbe Gluck’s recent work on statutory interpretation is her observation that the legal status of interpretive methodology remains unresolved.145 She has focused on this question primarily in the context of the Erie problem and other situations in which courts in one jurisdiction must interpret statutes adopted by the legislature of another jurisdiction.146 In this situation, a court in the forum state 139 See Sunstein, supra note 129, at 971-72; see also VERMEULE, supra note 14, at 85, 116-17 (claiming that institutional considerations can produce incompletely theorized agreements on interpretive methodology by judges and scholars with fundamentally different theoretical commitments). 140 See Frederick Schauer, Statutory Construction and the Coordinating Function of Plain Meaning, 1990 SUP. CT. REV. 231, 231. 141 Cf. John F. Manning, The Absurdity Doctrine, 116 HARV. L. REV. 2387, 2434-37 (2003) (linking the benefits of bright-line rules to the American constitutional structure); Sunstein, supra note 129, at 977 (recognizing that the costs of case-by-case decision-making in litigation may systematically favor the well-to-do). 142 Sunstein, supra note 129, at 957. 143 I have sought to capitalize on the perceived advantages of rulemaking in other contexts. See Mulligan & Staszewski, supra note 43; Glen Staszewski, Rejecting the Myth of Popular Sovereignty and Applying an Agency Model to Direct Democracy, 56 VAND. L. REV. 395 (2003). 144 See supra Part I. 145 See Gluck, supra note 8, at 1750; Gluck, supra note 12, at 1909-19; see also Criddle & Staszewski, supra note 36, at 1577 (discussing this aspect of Gluck’s work). 146 See generally Gluck, supra note 12. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 233 principles of statutory interpretation are less clear and more varied, but he relies quite heavily on both “logic” and “tradition” to flesh out the proper methods for reading law in a constitutional democracy.156 Some of his subsidiary principles might be considered common law rules of statutory interpretation that could be modified over time by federal courts or Congress, but Justice Scalia contends that a serious effort by Congress to codify binding rules of statutory interpretation would raise significant constitutional difficulties based on the separation of powers.157 He therefore seems to suggest that while federal judges could potentially tinker with his proposed methodology at the margins, a proper understanding of the fundamental principles of our constitutional democracy mandates the central principles of textualism. Professor Vermeule shares Justice Scalia’s preference for a version of textualism, but he strongly disagrees with the position that any particular interpretive methodology can be derived from the U.S. Constitution or abstract principles like democracy or separation of powers.158 In this regard, Vermeule argues that “[t]he Constitution cannot plausibly be read to say a great deal about the contested issues of statutory interpretation[,]” and that “what it does say is often so minimal and so abstract as to leave open all the contested questions of interpretive choice.”159 He therefore concludes that “[t]he best reading of the Constitution is that interpretive formalism and interpretive antiformalism are constitutionally optional for judges.”160 As a result, Vermeule argues that the resolution of disputed questions about how to interpret statutes will necessarily “require empirical and institutional analysis in addition to first-best theorizing from constitutional premises,”161 and he suggests that the federal judiciary’s answers to these questions should be understood as a form of common law that could vary over time based on the available information.162 elaborate apparatus for deliberation on, amending, and approving a text is just a way to create some evidence about the law, while the real source of legal rules is the mental processes of legislators’” (emphasis added) (quoting In re Sinclair, 870 F.2d 1340, 1344 (7th Cir. 1989) (Easterbrook, J.))). 156 See, e.g., id. at 233 (“Logical reasoning is the duty of courts, and not even the legislature can exclude it.”); id. at 369 (“From the beginnings of the republic, American law followed what is known as the ‘no-recourse doctrine’—that in the interpretation of a text, no recourse may be had to legislative history.”). 157 Id. at 43-44, 243-46. 158 VERMEULE, supra note 14, at 29-34, 75-76. 159 Id. at 31. 160 Id. at 33 (emphasis added). 161 Id. 162 Vermeule acknowledges that his proposed methodology for statutory interpretation is provisional and that his conclusions might change in response to better information about the institutional variables. Id. at 289-90. He also suggests that the prevailing approaches to statutory interpretation have changed over time based on shifts in behavior by the relevant 234 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 Professor Rosenkranz gives more credence to the idea that the validity of specific interpretive doctrines could be influenced in a meaningful way by the Constitution, and he develops an elaborate framework for assessing the constitutional status of a wide range of interpretive techniques.163 He nonetheless concludes that the vast majority of interpretive principles are judicially created common law that could permissibly be displaced by a duly enacted statute.164 Similarly, while Professor Bruhl agrees that the interpretive techniques used by federal courts must be constitutionally permissible and that some interpretive choices may be required or prohibited by the Constitution, he concludes that “the types of interpretive choices” that he addresses “are essentially matters of common law in the sense that they could be changed by either courts or legislatures.”165 Foster and Gluck seem to take essentially the same position, and they proceed to maintain that if interpretive methodology is, at bottom, a set of judicially created common law rules, interpretive methodology should be given stare decisis effect, just like most other judicial decisions.166 Indeed, Foster argues that interpretive methodology should be given even stronger stare decisis effect than comparable substantive decisions based on the overarching need for a clear and predictable interpretive regime in this area.167 By treating most aspects of interpretive methodology as judicially created common law, these scholars make the establishment of a simplified or uniform set of interpretive rules possible, even if the Constitution does not mandate any particular interpretive methodology. D. Interpretation As Constructed Meaning The final assumption driving the proposals is a common belief that statutory interpretation’s function is to ascertain the meaning of the law. This trend in the literature leaves room for disagreement about precisely how this should be done, but these jurists and scholars seem to agree that when a federal court has finished interpreting a federal statute, the end result is “to say what the law is.”168 Interpretive methodology is essentially understood as the process by which courts attribute meaning to the law. The dumbing down of statutory interpretation is based on the notion that if courts adopted a simple, consistent, and uniform interpretive methodology, they could facilitate clarity and predictability in legal meaning, and thereby limit judicial discretion and promote the rule of law. legal actors. Adrian Vermeule, The Cycles of Statutory Interpretation, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 149 (2001). 163 Rosenkranz, supra note 11, at 2092-2140. 164 Id. at 2140. 165 Bruhl, supra note 13, at 445 n.23. 166 See supra note 154 and accompanying text. 167 Foster, supra note 12, at 1884-97. 168 Cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 235 Most accounts of statutory interpretation divide the task of ascertaining the meaning of the law into two components or stages, which correspond roughly to the framework for reviewing the legality of interpretive decisions by administrative agencies under Chevron. The first stage examines whether the statute has a clear meaning with respect to the precise question at issue,169 and nearly everyone agrees that federal courts are typically obligated to give effect to the unambiguous meaning of the statutes enacted by Congress.170 Different interpretive methodologies differ, however, with respect to how they go about assessing whether a statute’s meaning is unambiguous and in their degree of willingness to recognize or acknowledge statutory ambiguity. Federal courts therefore disagree about precisely how they should implement the first step of the Chevron inquiry.171 In any event, nearly everyone agrees that at some point the meaning of the law on a particular question is best described as ambiguous, and courts therefore need to select and apply interpretive rules or methods to resolve the ambiguity and fix the content of the law.172 Although Chevron recognizes that agencies can lawfully adopt a range of “reasonable” interpretations of ambiguous statutory provisions over time, the judiciary has traditionally given ambiguous federal statutes a single fixed meaning,173 and this is generally still the case outside of Chevron’s limited domain.174 The key point is that the function of statutory interpretation is widely viewed as 169 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984). 170 See id. at 842-43 (setting forth the Court’s recognition of this principle). Most judges and scholars would recognize exceptions to this rule when a statute contains a scrivener’s error or when its plain meaning would lead to absurd results. See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, Avoiding Absurdity? A New Canon in Regulatory Law, 32 ENVTL. L. REP. 11126 (2002). These exceptions are controversial within textualist theory. See Manning, supra note 141; John C. Nagle, Textualism’s Exceptions, 2 ISSUES IN LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP, no. 2, 2002, at 1, available at http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss3/art15 (describing the exceptions, but ultimately concluding that they are infrequently used and of marginal benefit). Some courts and commentators maintain, however, that scrivener’s errors and unintended absurdities can be understood to create ambiguity, and that such exceptions are therefore fully compatible with a norm that requires the judiciary to follow the unambiguous meaning of statutory mandates. See, e.g., Am. Water Works Ass’n v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (“Indeed, where a literal reading of a statutory term would lead to absurd results, the term simply ‘has no plain meaning . . . and is the proper subject of construction by the . . . courts.’” (internal citation omitted)); Sunstein, supra, at 11126 (arguing that agencies should be permitted to interpret statutes to avoid absurd results even when courts should not). 171 See Elizabeth Garrett, Step One of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in A GUIDE TO JUDICIAL AND POLITICAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCIES 55, 55-84 (John F. Duffy & Michael Herz eds., 2005) (describing the different approaches). 172 See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, Interpreting Statutes in the Regulatory State, 103 HARV. L. REV. 405 (1989) (emphasizing the need to invoke background principles or norms to resolve difficult statutory cases). 173 See Nelson, supra note 127, at 14-15 (discussing the historical trend). 174 See, e.g., United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 239 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). 238 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 provides a brief overview of a theory of republican democracy that easily beats liberal theory as a foundation for thinking about the role of courts, and it compels the conclusion that instead of seeking to eliminate judicial discretion, the primary goal of statutory interpretation methodology should be to protect the people from the possibility of arbitrary domination by the state. Before describing the relevant aspects of this theory, it may be useful to flesh out the liberal anxiety with judicial discretion that pervades American public law. As Bill Eskridge has explained, “[l]iberalism posits a society of autonomous individuals whose interests are incommensurable. These autonomous individuals form a social contract to achieve collective goals unattainable through private action.”184 Those individuals like to preserve their autonomy, however, and they generally prefer to protect the private sphere from interference by the state.185 The agreed-upon mechanism for making collective decisions on behalf of society is the legislature, which is accountable to the people through regular elections.186 Because federal judges are not politically accountable, their exercise of policymaking discretion is in severe tension with liberal democratic theory.187 Accordingly, liberal democratic theory seeks to limit the policymaking discretion of judges by requiring them to justify legal decisions as the product of the policy choices of elected officials.188 Liberal theory typically equates freedom with non-interference, and posits that government may only legitimately interfere with the freedom of citizens through the authoritative decisions of elected representatives. Judicial discretion therefore raises the classic problem of “the countermajoritarian difficulty” in judicial review and its functional equivalent in statutory interpretation.189 Professor Eskridge has persuasively concluded that “it is doubtful that any theory will successfully allay liberalism’s anxiety about permitting unelected judges to make policy choices that invade private interests.”190 The best strategy for justifying, and indeed genuinely appreciating, the inevitable role of judicial discretion in statutory interpretation is therefore to move away from the tenets of liberal theory, and to consider principles of republican democracy.191 Philip Pettit has recently set forth a theory of 184 William N. Eskridge, Jr., Spinning Legislative Supremacy, 78 GEO. L.J. 319, 344 (1989); see also Staszewski, supra note 27, at 238-39 (relying on Eskridge’s work to explain this view). 185 See Eskridge, supra note 184, at 344. 186 See id. at 344-45. 187 See id. at 345. 188 See id. 189 See Molot, supra note 121, at 6-7. 190 Eskridge, supra note 184, at 345. 191 The following description of Pettit’s theory and its implications for statutory interpretation incorporate text from my related work in this area. See Staszewski, supra note 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 239 democracy that rejects the liberal conception of freedom as non-interference in favor of the republican conception of freedom as non-domination.192 From this perspective, the primary role of government is to protect freedom, which consists of the absence of the possibility of domination by other agents. Contrary to the tenets of liberal theory—where regulatory intervention necessarily invades liberty—government can promote freedom under this view by protecting citizens from the possibility of domination by private parties. The problem, of course, is that government can also be a source of domination. It is therefore essential for a republican democracy to provide safeguards to limit the possibility of domination by the state. Pettit explains that limiting the possibility of domination by the state requires mechanisms to prevent public officials from ignoring the interests and perspectives of ordinary people, and that this argues in favor of the electoral dimension of democracy.193 Periodic elections bring government under the control of the people in the sense that voters are empowered to select candidates for office based on their likelihood of promoting the collective interests of the people.194 The republican argument for elections is simply that they provide a sensible way to force government to advance the common, perceived interests of citizens, and thereby provide a check against potential domination by the state.195 Pettit recognizes, however, that elections can only provide limited protection against the possibility of domination because electoral democracy is not necessarily responsive to the interests and perspectives of minorities.196 Indeed, “it is quite consistent with electoral democracy that government should only track the perceived interests of a majority, absolute or relative, on any issue and that it [will] have a dominating aspect from the point of view of others.”197 For this reason, republican theorists have always been concerned about providing structural safeguards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.198 “The 27, at 225-29, 240-45, 253-54; Staszewski, supra note 113, at 1171-72. 192 PETTIT, supra note 29, at 51; Pettit, supra note 29, at 163. 193 Pettit, supra note 29, at 173. 194 See id. 195 See id.; cf. Rebecca L. Brown, Accountability, Liberty, and the Constitution, 98 COLUM. L. REV. 531, 535 (1998) (claiming that political representation was designed as a means of allowing the American people to protect themselves from abuses of power by government). 196 Pettit, supra note 29, at 173-78. 197 Id. at 174. 198 See, e.g., Joseph M. Bessette, Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government, in HOW DEMOCRATIC IS THE CONSTITUTION? 102, 104 (Robert A. Goldwin & William A. Schambra eds., 1980) (“There can be no dispute that the framers desired to place certain kinds of restraints on certain kinds of popular majorities.”); Cass R. Sunstein, Interest Groups in American Public Law, 38 STAN. L. REV. 29, 44 (1985) (“The system of checks and balances within the federal structure was intended to operate as a check against self-interested representation and factional tyranny . . . .”). 240 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 elimination of domination would require, not just that the people considered collectively cannot be ignored by government, but also that people considered severally or distributively cannot be ignored either.”199 Pettit therefore considers “whether there is any way of subjecting government to a mode of distributive or minority control in order to balance the electorally established mode of collective or majority control.”200 The most obvious solution is a procedure that would enable minorities to question public decisions on the basis of their perceived interests, and to trigger a review in an impartial forum where all “relevant interests are taken equally into account and only impartially supported decisions are upheld.”201 The contestatory dimension of democracy provides citizens with the power to challenge public decisions on the grounds that their interests and perspectives were not adequately taken into account during the decision-making process, and that the resulting decision was therefore arbitrary.202 The underlying assumption is that the final decision would have been different if such interests were given equal consideration.203 Pettit claims that the electoral dimension of democracy promotes legitimacy by ensuring that governmental decisions originate, “however indirectly, in the collective will of the people.”204 Significantly, however, the contestatory dimension of democracy further improves the legitimacy of those decisions to the extent that they can withstand challenges brought by individuals “in forums and under procedures that are acceptable to all concerned.”205 Whereas the electoral mode of democracy “gives the collective people an indirect power of authorship over the laws,” the contestatory mode of democracy “would give the people, considered individually, a limited and, of course, indirect power of editorship over those laws.”206 I have recently argued that Pettit’s theory of republican democracy, and the related insights of deliberative democratic theory, have a remarkable ability to explain the democratic legitimacy of the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state.207 In a nutshell, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to play the primary authorial role in the lawmaking process,208 and this is entirely legitimate because of the electoral 199 Pettit, supra note 29, at 178. 200 Id. 201 Id. at 179. 202 See id. at 180. 203 Id. 204 Id. 205 Id. 206 Id. (emphasis added). 207 Staszewski, supra note 27, at 240; Staszewski, supra note 113, at 465-76 (applying this theory to the interpretation of successful ballot measures). 208 See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 1. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 243 judicial precedent, seeking to carry out the statutory purpose, or by deferring to an authoritative interpretation by an administrative agency.221 Perhaps most important for present purposes, all of these approaches would effectively compel courts to “eschew[] the use of other tools to enrich their sense of meaning, intentions, or purposes,”222 and they would generally forbid judges from considering the policy implications of their decisions or how things have changed since a statute was enacted. While regulatory agencies could presumably take these policy-oriented considerations into account in reaching their decisions on the best way to implement a statute, the advocates of some of these proposals maintain that the judiciary should not second-guess those decisions based on the superior political accountability and expertise of administrators.223 Hence, they seemingly reject the use of hard-look judicial review to evaluate the validity of an agency’s resolution of statutory ambiguity. In short, these proposals essentially boil down to (1) finding the answer that was put into the statute by Congress, largely through the use of textual analysis, and (2) resolving any latent ambiguity by deferring to the policy choices of agencies. The proposals, by design, leave virtually no independent policymaking or checking function (or, in other words, no editorial role) for the federal judiciary. As a result, they effectively strip statutory interpretation of its capacity to serve as a mechanism of contestatory democracy, except when agencies unambiguously exceed the scope of their statutory authority. My proposed vision of statutory interpretation recognizes that the advantages of rule-based decision-making should be respected when Congress has explicitly resolved an issue in a reasoned fashion during the lawmaking process.224 My claim, however, is that the resolution of disputes regarding the permissible scope of governmental authority in difficult statutory cases requires the use of practical reasoning, and that the quality of statutory law and its democratic legitimacy benefit from an ongoing, multi-institutional, systemic dialogue on those questions. Moreover, if statutory interpretation is to provide individuals and groups with opportunities to challenge the validity of governmental authority, and thereby avoid the possibility of domination by the state, interpretive litigation should be an information-rich environment that is open to a wide range of competing arguments and a variety of potential justifications for judicial decisions. DUKE L.J. 511, 521. 221 See WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. ET AL., CASES AND MATERIALS ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 230 (2012) (“For Justice Scalia himself, the answer is to follow and reason from Supreme Court precedent construing open-textured laws like the Sherman Act or defer to reasonable agency interpretations of statutes or attribute a purpose to the statute and construe it according to such purpose.”). 222 VERMEULE, supra note 14, at 183. 223 See, e.g., Scalia, supra note 220, at 515; supra Parts I.C-I.D. 224 Staszewski, supra note 27, at 252-53. 244 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 The animating idea is that avoiding the possibility of domination by the state requires public officials to consider and respond in a reasoned fashion to the interests and perspectives of everyone who will be significantly affected by coercive exercises of governmental authority. When the legislature explicitly resolves an issue in a reasoned fashion during the lawmaking process, we ordinarily assume that Congress satisfies this requirement because of the structural safeguards that the Constitution provides to facilitate reasoned deliberation.225 For this reason, agencies and courts are generally obligated to follow the legislature’s decisions, and the primary mechanisms for contesting existing law are for critics of the status quo to seek a statutory amendment or persuade the judiciary to declare a statute unconstitutional. When Congress fails to anticipate or resolve an issue during the legislative process, it routinely delegates the relevant policymaking authority to an administrative agency.226 Agencies are, in turn, relatively well-positioned to determine whether Congress has explicitly resolved an issue in a reasoned fashion during the legislative process, and, if not, which courses of action would be most appropriate under the circumstances.227 Agencies, of course, tend to have a great deal of prior experience and substantive expertise in their regulatory areas. They are also subject to the ongoing influence of elected officials through the powers of appointment and removal, the budget process, and various means of congressional and executive oversight. Significantly, administrators are frequently required to follow procedures that obligate them to consider and respond to the interests and perspectives of the regulated entities and regulatory beneficiaries that are most likely to be affected by their decisions, as well as the views of attentive, ordinary citizens.228 Thus, for example, the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to provide meaningful opportunities for public notice and comment when they promulgate 225 See, e.g., Philip P. Frickey, The Communion of Strangers: Representative Government, Direct Democracy, and the Public Sphere, 34 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 421, 444 (1998) (“We presume that the legislature will not only meet but will engage and deliberate with and about the relevant strangers in the public sphere and that the strangers, although remaining strangers and never becoming friends, will be treated with concern and respect.”); Staszewski, supra note 27, at 251-53 (“[T]he structural safeguards that are provided by the Constitution to facilitate reasoned deliberation and prevent faction help to explain the strong presumption of constitutionality that the judiciary routinely ascribes to legislation.”). While this assumption may not be true in many cases, it is widely believed that judicial enforcement of robust principles of “due process of lawmaking” would be unworkable. See, e.g., Philip P. Frickey & Steven S. Smith, Judicial Review, the Congressional Process, and the Federalism Cases: An Interdisciplinary Critique, 111 YALE L.J. 1707 (2002) (lamenting the Court’s exceedingly rigorous intrusion into congressional processes). Accordingly, the judiciary will typically enforce the legislature’s policy decisions in the absence of a substantive constitutional violation. 226 See Staszewski, supra note 27, at 254. 227 See id. at 258-61. 228 See id. at 261. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 245 legislative rules,229 and agency interpretations of statutes are not entitled to as much judicial deference if they decline to provide such procedures.230 While there is little empirical research that rigorously examines how agencies interpret their enabling acts,231 it seems likely that they would typically engage in a process of practical reasoning, which considers a variety of relevant factors to make what they regard as the best decision under the circumstances in each particular situation.232 Most scholars seem to agree that agencies are likely to be better statutory interpreters than courts for the foregoing reasons.233 Nonetheless, the availability of meaningful judicial review of agency decision-making is vital from the perspective of republican democracy for a couple of reasons. First, judicial review can help to ensure that agencies respect the explicit policy choices of the enacting Congress, and thereby honor the principle of legislative supremacy when a statute is subsequently implemented.234 Second, judicial review can help to ensure that agencies engage in reasoned decision-making, and that they give adequate consideration to all of the interests and perspectives that are expressed during the administrative process.235 Judicial review can therefore prevent agencies from giving short shrift to legal considerations, while simultaneously discouraging agencies from giving excessive weight to political considerations that are unrelated to the merits of implementing their delegated statutory authority. Agencies have plenty of incentives to reach decisions that comport with the preferences of powerful or 229 See 5 U.S.C. § 553 (2012). 230 See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). 231 For a recent study that addresses some aspects of this topic, see Christopher J. Walker, Chevron Inside the Regulatory State: An Empirical Assessment, 83 FORDHAM L. REV. 703 (2014) (exploring empirically how the Court’s deference doctrine may affect statutory interpretation by agencies). 232 See CHRISTOPHER F. EDLEY JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: RETHINKING JUDICIAL CONTROL OF BUREAUCRACY 72-95 (1990) (claiming that all agency decisions have political, scientific, and legal dimensions that are difficult or impossible to disentangle); Jody Freeman & David B. Spence, Old Statutes, New Problems, 163 U. PA. L. REV. 1 (2014) (providing case studies of the pragmatic manner in which agencies tend to apply old statutes to unanticipated new problems). 233 See Staszewski, supra note 27, at 258-61 (providing sources); see also William N. Eskridge, Jr., Expanding Chevron’s Domain: A Comparative Institutional Analysis of the Relative Competence of Courts and Agencies to Interpret Statutes, 2013 WIS. L. REV. 411 (arguing in favor of according agencies primacy over courts in statutory interpretation). 234 See, e.g., William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective, 18 J.L. & ECON. 875 (1975); Jonathan T. Molot, Reexamining Marbury in the Administrative State: A Structural and Institutional Defense of Judicial Power over Statutory Interpretation, 96 NW. U. L. REV. 1239, 1279-80 (2002). 235 See Glen Staszewski, Political Reasons, Deliberative Democracy, and Administrative Law, 97 IOWA L. REV. 849, 885-93 (2012) (explaining that hard-look judicial review promotes principles of deliberative democracy). 248 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 contestatory democracy.242 Federal courts will undoubtedly disagree about how statutes should be interpreted in some hard cases under this approach, because judges will have different perspectives about the best course of action on the merits under the circumstances. The judicial discretion that is inherent in this approach should be understood, however, as a feature rather than a bug of the interpretive enterprise.243 If there were only one way of interpreting statutes, dictated either by the Constitution or a binding set of codified rules, courts would have much less leeway to decide which sources of interpretive guidance should receive the greatest weight in any particular case. Since each of the leading foundational theories emphasizes information that is valuable for different reasons, none of those approaches will be appropriate in every situation. For example, textualism does not provide a single correct answer when the statutory text is ambiguous or when the plain meaning of a statute would lead to highly problematic results that were not anticipated by the legislature. Similarly, intentionalism cannot resolve a case when the lawmakers did not anticipate or resolve the problem that arises during adjudication. Meanwhile, purposivism is not especially helpful when a statute promotes competing purposes or when a court must decide how far Congress went in achieving a statute’s underlying goals and the statute does not provide ascertainable limiting principles. Moreover, many cases present conflicts among the different considerations emphasized by the competing foundational theories, or between the results that would ordinarily be dictated by the straightforward use of those methods and other widely accepted values. Finally, there are some hard cases where none of the foundational theories provides a clear answer to the interpretive problem and other public values must dictate the result. The choice of interpretive methodology in hard cases necessarily goes hand-in-hand with the judiciary’s assessment of the best decision under the circumstances. Any ex ante effort to specify a single interpretive methodology would, if consistently followed, (1) force the judiciary to disregard relevant interests or perspectives and reach what it perceives as the wrong decision in some hard cases; (2) leave courts without the tools necessary to reach any sensible decision in certain cases; or (3) preclude courts from being candid about the true rationales for some of their decisions. This effort would therefore facilitate the possibility of arbitrary domination by the state. The fact that different judges may disagree and reach inconsistent outcomes in some hard cases is not a significant problem for several related reasons. First, most hard cases do not have a single correct answer, and it does not 242 Staszewski, supra note 27, at 262-78. 243 See Leib & Serota, supra note 31; see also Solan, supra note 11, at 747 (claiming that “it will never be possible to come up with a hierarchy that will rank all of the [legitimate] considerations in such a way as to have the ranking apply across a broad range of cases . . . because various factors can be stronger or weaker from case to case and judges require enough flexibility to take this into account”). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 249 promote democracy to pretend otherwise or to adopt a mechanical formula for resolving statutory disputes that precludes consideration of potentially persuasive information. Second, the traditional principles of statutory interpretation that courts use when they engage in practical reasoning provide meaningful constraints that limit the scope of judicial discretion and cabin the range of plausible outcomes.244 The judiciary plays an editorial role in statutory interpretation; it is not the primary lawmaker from this perspective. Third, judicial decisions under this approach should be relatively minimalistic, incremental, dynamic, and provisional245—which means that they could potentially be distinguished in subsequent cases based on new information, reconsidered based on new information or arguments from a regulatory agency that subsequently engaged in reasoned deliberation on the matter,246 or overruled by Congress pursuant to a statutory amendment if there was sufficient consensus in favor of a different course of action. Finally, diverse judicial perspectives and interpretive methodologies promote a dialogue within the federal judicial system on the best way of handling difficult statutory questions both in particular cases and as a more general matter. This diversity also helps to facilitate a broader, multi-institutional, systemic dialogue about the best resolution of contested policy issues, thereby improving the modern regulatory state’s democratic legitimacy. Both aspects of this dialogue would be severely hampered by the dumbing down of statutory interpretation, because there would be much less forthright or reflective discussion of the merits of various policy alternatives. C. The Modern Legal Hierarchy in the Regulatory State The proponents of the proposals at issue adhere to the traditional hierarchy of legal sources, and they seem to assume that these sources of law are exclusive.247 Accordingly, they either contend that their preferred interpretive methodology is constitutionally mandated, or that interpretive principles are judicially created common law, which should be treated as precedential unless overridden by Congress.248 My claim is that the traditional hierarchy of legal sources is outdated in the modern regulatory state, and that “interpretive methodology” and “agency decision-making” should be recognized as distinct forms of law in the following new legal hierarchy: (1) Constitution, (2) interpretive methodology, (3) statutes, (4) agency action,249 and (5) common 244 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 30, at 380-83. 245 See Staszewski, supra note 27, at 273. 246 See Kenneth A. Bamberger, Provisional Precedent: Protecting Flexibility in Administrative Policymaking, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1272, 1276 (2002). 247 See supra Part II.C. 248 See supra notes 22-24 and accompanying text. 249 This discussion focuses primarily on the place of interpretive methodology in a new legal hierarchy for the regulatory state. I plan to address the legal status of various types of agency action and develop this proposed legal hierarchy more fully in a subsequent project. 250 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 law. Moreover, unlike traditional sources of law, which are generally viewed as fixed,250 these “new” forms of law are, by definition, provisional. Accordingly, Congress cannot dictate binding rules of statutory interpretation to the judiciary, and one court cannot ordinarily dictate the interpretive methodology of its successors. While a full reconsideration of the nature and sources of “law” is a much larger project than I can accomplish here, I wish to offer a descriptive hypothesis and a normative thesis. The descriptive hypothesis is that interpretive methodology is influenced by the Constitution and the meta-intent of Congress, but it generally cannot be controlled by those sources. Moreover, courts generally believe that they are bound by constitutional limits on their interpretive discretion, and that Congress cannot dictate how the judiciary interprets statutes. Accordingly, interpretive methodology falls in between the Constitution and statutes as a source of law in the modern regulatory state. The normative thesis is that viewing interpretive methodology as a provisional source of law, which is influenced from the top by the Constitution and from the bottom by Congress’s meta-intent, is an attractive way of thinking about the interpretive enterprise and the broader nature of law. This is partly the case because the current treatment of interpretive methodology helps to facilitate the ongoing, systemic dialogue about the best ways of solving difficult social problems that is discussed above, and it is therefore an important part of what keeps the law purposive, dynamic, and equitable. This understanding of interpretive methodology helps to avoid some of the shortcomings of an unduly strict attachment to “legalism,”251 and it suggests that our legal ethos includes commitments to reasoned deliberation, contestatory democracy, and freedom from the possibility of domination.252 This section concludes by drawing upon the work of legendary law and society scholars Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick to distinguish my proposed view of law from the apparent vision of the advocates of dumbing down statutory interpretation.253 In short, they want to transform interpretive methodology into a more primitive form of “autonomous law,” whereas my approach values the interpretive process’s capacity to make the law more responsive. 250 Common law precedent can, of course, be distinguished or overruled, but courts are obligated by stare decisis to follow binding precedent that is on point, unless previous decisions are overruled. Similarly, constitutions and statutes can be amended, but doing so is often quite difficult as a practical matter. Accordingly, the traditional sources of law are fixed in the sense that they do not ordinarily change from case to case. 251 See JUDITH N. SHKLAR, LEGALISM: LAW, MORALS, AND POLITICAL TRIALS (2d ed. 1986). 252 Cf. Robin West, Reconsidering Legalism, 88 MINN. L. REV. 119 (2003) (claiming that the prevailing legal ethos also includes a fundamental commitment to preserving peace and providing security). 253 PHILIPPE NONET & PHILIP SELZNICK, LAW AND SOCIETY IN TRANSITION: TOWARD RESPONSIVE LAW (1978). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 253 methodology could conflict with another legislature’s substantive intent regarding the application of a particular statute, and it is almost universally accepted that the specific trumps the general in the case of two conflicting statutory mandates.269 This could also be the case because most codified rules of statutory interpretation are too general to have much practical impact.270 This is also likely to be the case, however, because many judges do not believe that the legislature can legitimately tell them how to interpret statutes, especially when an interpretive code would force them to reach results that they view as erroneous or in conflict with other public values.271 Thus, it also seems fair to say that interpretive methodology is influenced by Congress’s meta-intent regarding statutory interpretation, but it cannot be controlled by Congress’s meta-intent as a general matter. Moreover, since courts generally appear to believe that they are bound by constitutional limits on their interpretive discretion and that Congress cannot dictate how they interpret statutes, interpretive methodology falls in between the Constitution and statutes as a source of law in the modern regulatory state. Finally, it bears reiterating that because federal courts do not give stare decisis effect to the interpretive methodology that was used to decide prior cases, interpretive methodology is distinct from the common law and other traditional legal sources insofar as “the law” changes from case-to-case and is therefore relatively provisional. 2. The Normative Thesis My normative thesis is that viewing interpretive methodology as a provisional source of law that is influenced from the top by the Constitution and from the bottom by Congress’s meta-intent, but that is not tightly controlled by either of those sources, is an attractive way of thinking about the interpretive enterprise and the broader nature of law. The previous section explained that if there was only one way of interpreting statutes, which was 269 See Andrew Tutt, Comment, Interpretation Step Zero: A Limit on Methodology as “Law,” 122 YALE L.J. 2055, 2059-61 (2013). 270 See id. at 2055; Romero, supra note 46, at 217. 271 See, e.g., Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 786 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“[I]nterpretation statutes that ‘seek[] to control the attitude or the subjective thoughts of the judiciary’ violate the separation of powers doctrine.” (quoting James C. Thomas, Statutory Construction When Legislation is Viewed as a Legal Institution, 3 HARV. J. LEGIS. 191, 211 n.85 (1966))); SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15, at 243-46 (discussing the “interesting question” of “how far a legislature can go in prescribing how the courts interpret,” claiming that the question “is for the most part academic,” but suggesting that “[a]n interpretive command applicable to all statutes” is potentially problematic because it may be “an intrusion upon the courts’ function of interpreting the laws, rather than an exercise of the legislature’s power to clarify the meaning of its product”); see also Linda D. Jellum, “Which is to be Master,” the Judiciary or the Legislature? When Statutory Directives Violate Separation of Powers, 56 UCLA L. REV. 837 (2009); Jennifer M. Bandy, Note, Interpretive Freedom: A Necessary Component of Article III Judging, 61 DUKE L.J. 651 (2011). 254 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 either dictated by the Constitution or by a binding set of codified rules, courts would have much less leeway to decide which sources of interpretive guidance should receive the greatest weight in any particular case. This would interfere with their ability to reach what they regard as the best decision in each case and would likely inhibit judicial candor. In contrast, an approach that allows the judiciary to engage in practical reasoning about the best course of action on the merits under the circumstances facilitates reasoned decision-making by the state. As explained above, courts are obligated to respect Congress’s policy decisions when the legislature has explicitly resolved the precise question at issue during the lawmaking process. Moreover, courts should defer to an agency’s resolution of statutory ambiguity if the agency has engaged in reasoned decision-making on the matter. If neither Congress nor an agency has explicitly resolved the precise question at issue in a reasoned fashion, however, this task necessarily falls to the judiciary.272 Federal courts should, in turn, be free to make what they regard as the best decisions on the merits under the circumstances, and they should be expected to justify their decisions with reasons that correspond with the accompanying interpretive methodology. Congress can, of course, overturn a judicial decision by a statutory amendment, and agencies may engage in further deliberation on the matter, which could subsequently persuade the judiciary to change its position. Because interpretive methodology goes hand-in-hand with the judiciary’s explanation for its decision in hard cases, the flexibility that is provided by existing law helps the judiciary reach sound decisions in particular cases and facilitates an ongoing, multi-institutional dialogue about the best ways of solving our most difficult collective problems. Interpretive methodology is therefore an important part of what keeps the law purposive, dynamic, and equitable. At the same time, however, constitutional principles and Congress’s likely meta-intent influence statutory interpretation, and those considerations therefore combine with legal culture to provide meaningful constraints on the judiciary’s discretion in statutory interpretation, even if they cannot control the precise methodology that is used or the result that is reached by courts in hard cases. From a broader jurisprudential perspective, this understanding of interpretive methodology helps to alleviate some of the shortcomings of an unduly strict attachment to “legalism,” and it suggests that our “legal ethos” also includes commitments to reasoned deliberation, contestatory democracy, and freedom from the possibility of domination. Judith Shklar argued that an ideological commitment to “legalism” is what unites the legal profession, and she defined legalism as “the ethical attitude that holds moral conduct to be a matter of rule following, and moral relationships to consist of duties and rights determined by rules.”273 Accordingly, “being a lawyer means that one is 272 See supra notes 208-212 and accompanying text; see also Staszewski, supra note 27, at 269, 297. 273 SHKLAR, supra note 251, at 1. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 255 committed to the ideological proposition that moral conduct is a matter of following rules.”274 In other words, “legalism” is a commitment to following rules for the sake of following rules. Shklar argued that legalism is common to both natural law theories of jurisprudence and legal positivism, and that it commits lawyers to the formalist position that all questions posed by conflicting rights and duties are fully determined by existing law.275 “Law, then, in the empire of legalism, has a static, given, autonomous, seamless, and complete nature, not only for formalists, who hold this thesis quite explicitly, but in some fashion, for virtually all lawyers.”276 Because the rules that determine existing legal rights and duties were, by definition, established in the past, “legalism, and hence the profession that defines itself by reference to it, has a distinctively and unmistakably conservative hue.”277 While Professor Shklar was profoundly critical of legalism and the ideology that it represents, the important point for present purposes is that the proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation exemplify this legalistic attitude. This is illustrated by the fact that the advocates of some of the proposals are clearly more concerned with establishing binding rules of statutory interpretation than they are with the content of those rules. Moreover, all of the proposals are designed to make statutory interpretation more rule-oriented and to limit or preclude the exercise of judicial discretion or policymaking judgment. The proponents of the proposals suggest that the absence of binding rules makes statutory interpretation “lawless,” and they aim to rectify this situation by telling federal courts precisely how to interpret statutes in every subsequent case. Federal courts would thereby become duty-bound to follow a consistent and predictable interpretive methodology, and moral quandaries would no longer arise in statutory interpretation. Instead, the rules of statutory interpretation would have “a static, given, autonomous, seamless, and complete nature,” and the questions posed by conflicting rights and duties in difficult statutory cases could be fully determined by established law.278 Robin West has persuasively argued that legalism accurately captures a defining element of American legal culture, but that our legal ethos also includes other important values, such as a commitment to preserving peace and promoting personal security to avoid the situation that would obtain in a state of nature.279 She points out that the goal of law is “not only to encourage or force rule-compliant behavior,” but also “to create the conditions for a higher quality of life than could be had in the absence of law,” and that law is therefore necessary to prevent “the exploitation of vulnerability and the abuse 274 West, supra note 252, at 119; see also id. at 119-25 (summarizing Shklar’s arguments). 275 See id. at 120. 276 Id. 277 Id. 278 Id. 279 See id. at 149-52. 258 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 “Procedure is the heart of law.” Regularity and fairness, not substantive justice, are the first ends and the main competence of the legal order. “Fidelity to law” is understood as strict obedience to the rules of positive law. Criticism of existing laws must be channeled through the political process.294 Nonet and Selznick recognize that a “close accountability to rules” is the chief advantage of autonomous law, and that “legalism is its affliction.”295 They explain that a narrow focus on rules tends to limit “the range of legally relevant facts, thereby detaching legal thought from social reality.”296 Legalism privileges legal authority “to the detriment of practical problem solving,” as “[t]he application of rules ceases to be informed by a regard for purposes, needs, and consequences.”297 This is costly “because of the rigidities” that are imposed by legalism, “but also because rules construed in abstracto are too easily satisfied by a formal observance that conceals substantive evasions of public policy.”298 Nonet and Selznick recognize that the shortcomings of legalism provide structural incentives for citizens to criticize the operation of autonomous law, and that this creates an environment that is conducive to challenges to governmental authority, which in turn provokes calls for the recognition of legal rights and increased flexibility or equity in interpretive litigation.299 “The long-term effect is to build into the legal order a dynamic of change, and to generate expectations that law respond flexibly to new problems and demands.”300 Nonet and Selznick claim that from this development, “[a] vision emerges, and the possibility is sensed, of a responsive legal order, more open to social influence and more effective in dealing with social problems.”301 The third stage of the rule of law is therefore responsive law,302 which essentially seeks to remedy the democratic shortcomings of an unduly strict attachment to legalism. Nonet and Selznick point out that “[t]he quest for responsive law has been a continuing preoccupation of modern legal theory,”303 beginning with legal realism and the advocates of sociological jurisprudence, and extending to traditional legal process theory as well as its more recent incarnations. The primary goal of such theories is “to make law more responsive to social needs,” which generally requires “a broadening of 294 Id. at 54. 295 Id. at 64. 296 Id. 297 Id. 298 Id. 299 See id. at 71-72. 300 Id. at 72. 301 Id. 302 See id. at 73-113. 303 Id. at 73. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 259 the field of the legally relevant, so that legal reasoning [can] embrace knowledge of the social contexts and effects of official action.”304 Responsive theories of law tend to be receptive to increased opportunities for participation in the legal process and to relatively expansive notions of the role of law. Such theories maintain that the rule of law should extend beyond procedural justice, and that it should be designed to help identify the public interest, promote institutional competence, and achieve substantive justice. In this higher stage of legal development, legal institutions can be expected “to give up the insular safety of autonomous law and become more dynamic instruments of social ordering and social change.”305 Nonet and Selznick provide a detailed analysis of the defining attributes and potential dangers of responsive law, which is organized around four main points. The first point is that responsive law is highly purposive and dynamic in nature and that those qualities are natural outgrowths or responses to the legalism of autonomous law.306 Because bright-line rules are inherently static and imprecise, the legal process becomes receptive to arguments for updating and fine-tuning those rules to better accord with their underlying purposes, other widely-accepted principles or values, and contemporary circumstances. While “[a]utonomous law recoils from the unsettling effect of purposive thinking,” this feature of responsive law “counteracts the tendency of officials to retreat behind rules and evade responsibility” for their decisions.307 The second point is that responsive law’s reliance on evolving purposes and principles provides a powerful basis for criticizing the legal status quo, and thereby has a tendency to undermine the received authority of rules and provide incentives for the use of relatively flexible or equitable approaches to interpretation.308 The third point is that the “openness” of responsive law provides increased opportunities for participation in the lawmaking process by a wider range of individuals and groups, and that it changes the nature of legal participation and results in “a wider sharing of legal authority.”309 In a responsive system of law, “legal action comes to serve as a vehicle by which groups and organizations may participate in the determination of public policy.”310 While responsive law rejects a sharp separation of law and politics, it also recognizes that the legal process is governed and constrained by legal authority, and that law and politics are therefore distinct. The fourth point is that the legal pluralism that responsive law facilitates has “both the virtues and the vices of openness,” and that legal institutions therefore “need effective 304 Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 305 Id. at 74. 306 See id. at 78-86. 307 Id. at 82-83. 308 See id. at 87-94. 309 Id. at 95; see also id. at 95-103. 310 Id. at 96. 260 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 tutelage in the accommodation of pressure.”311 In other words, responsive law needs competent institutions that are capable of withstanding the characteristic dangers of pressure politics. Nonet and Selznick therefore emphasize the importance of institutional design, and they express great hope for the potentially productive role that could be played by administrative law and the modern regulatory state in helping to achieve a more responsive legal system. In my view, Nonet and Selznick’s work strongly suggests that interpretive methodology is properly considered a form of law. The real question is whether our legal system’s current approach to interpretive methodology should be retrograded to fit within the paradigm of autonomous law, or whether it should be allowed to continue to operate in a relatively responsive fashion. The proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation are literally reactionary because they are seeking to transform interpretive methodology into a less advanced form of autonomous law. In contrast, the federal judiciary’s current approach and my proposed understanding are better characterized as instantiations of responsive law because they seek to counteract the shortcomings of an excessive attachment to rules and promote a more effective and responsive legal system. The proponents of the reform proposals at issue are evidently concerned that the exercise of judicial discretion in statutory interpretation could lead to “repressive law” or tyranny. While Nonet and Selznick recognized that responsive law is relatively “risky,” and that it would not necessarily be advisable in societies with weak legal cultures or public institutions, it is vital to understand that there is a world of difference between the official use of discretion to maintain the state’s authority and the official use of discretion to prevent the arbitrary domination of its people. The latter, by definition, promotes freedom and democracy, whereas the former does not. * * * From a broader perspective, it bears noting that the American legal system contains both autonomous and responsive features. When lawmakers have explicitly resolved the precise question that has arisen in adjudication, the traditional sources of substantive law (i.e., the Constitution, statutes, and the common law) are thought to establish authoritative rules that provide fixed answers. The role of the judiciary is to implement those rules and thereby to respect the autonomy of the law. Nonetheless, when lawmakers have not explicitly resolved the precise question at issue or circumstances have materially changed, and the applicable law is therefore ambiguous, agencies and courts can and should implement or interpret the law in a responsive fashion. Agency action and interpretive methodology are therefore distinct forms of law in the modern regulatory state, and they should be recognized in the following new legal hierarchy: (1) Constitution, (2) interpretive methodology, (3) statutes, (4) agency action, and (5) common law. 311 Id. at 104; see also id. at 104-13 (explaining responsive law’s advantages and limitations). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 263 statutory interpretation are fundamentally misguided and should be rejected. Rather than trying to eliminate judicial discretion by adopting a simple and uniform approach to statutory interpretation that would be legally binding and external to a judge’s sense of the best way to resolve a case, I have suggested that courts should resolve hard cases through the use of practical reasoning. This pragmatic approach provides litigants with meaningful opportunities to contest the validity of governmental authority, and thereby allows courts to avoid the possibility of arbitrary domination by the state, while respecting the competing interests and perspectives of different litigants and judges. This approach improves the responsiveness of law and promotes fundamental principles of republican democracy. This Part briefly returns to each of the proposals at issue to make some related observations about the extent to which interpretive methodology can or should be simple or uniform. It closes by suggesting that provisional dialogues by and among different centers of power better reflect the nature of law in the modern regulatory state than artificial efforts to achieve simple, predictable, and uniform final answers to our most pressing legal or social problems. Unlike recent proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation, the existing interpretive regime correctly reflects this insight. A. Interpretive Guidance While some scholars have suggested that “the interpretation wars” could be ended by Congress’s enactment of federal rules of statutory interpretation, it is more likely that codified rules of statutory interpretation are “advisory” by their very nature. Most of the codified interpretive rules that have been adopted by American states or foreign countries explicitly state that this is the case.319 Moreover, most interpretive codes are too general, prosaic, or eclectic to exert significant influence over how the judiciary decides particular statutory cases.320 Finally, as explained more fully below, courts generally do not, frequently cannot, and probably will not consistently follow codified interpretive rules with which they disagree. First, as a descriptive matter, courts do not consistently follow codified interpretive rules with which they disagree.321 Professor Gluck has provided detailed case studies of recent events in Texas and Connecticut that vividly illustrate this phenomenon.322 The state legislature in Texas has adopted codified interpretive rules that explicitly endorse an eclectic approach to statutory interpretation and that authorize the state judiciary to consider, among other things, the legislative history and purpose of a statute, even when the text 319 See Romero, supra note 46, at 217 & nn.27-28 (citing examples). 320 See id. (providing examples of states that have merely codified common law canons of interpretation). 321 See generally Widman, supra note 268. 322 Gluck, supra note 8, at 1785-97. 264 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 is unambiguous.323 Nonetheless, the Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the highest court in Texas for criminal matters, has explicitly refused to consider extrinsic sources of statutory interpretation in the absence of textual ambiguity, and has chosen instead to follow a modified textualist methodology.324 The Court of Criminal Appeals has justified its departure from the state interpretive code by claiming that legislative efforts “‘to control the attitude or the subjective thoughts of the judiciary’ violate the separation of powers doctrine.”325 Gluck reports that the Texas Supreme Court, which is the state’s highest court for civil matters, “is inconsistent” in its willingness to follow the state interpretive code, but that it “often reaches the same result [as the Court of Criminal Appeals], albeit more diplomatically.”326 Gluck provides other examples of both high courts deviating from the state interpretative code and examines the Fifth Circuit’s approach to diversity cases involving the interpretation of Texas statutes. She amusingly reports that the codified rule authorizing consideration of extratextual evidence in the absence of ambiguity “has resulted in at least three different judicial approaches: the criminal court (and the Fifth Circuit, generally) ignores it, the Texas Supreme Court evades it, and the lower state courts forthrightly find statutes ambiguous in order to accommodate both the rule and the highest courts’ objection to it.”327 The situation in Connecticut involved the opposite ideological configuration, but nonetheless resulted in a similar judicial refusal to follow the rules of statutory interpretation that were codified by the legislature. This power struggle was initiated when the Connecticut Supreme Court announced in 2003 that it would no longer follow a plain meaning rule that precluded the consideration of extrinsic evidence of statutory meaning in the absence of textual ambiguity.328 In response to this decision, the state legislature promptly enacted a statute, which prohibits consideration of “extratextual evidence” of statutory meaning if the “text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results.”329 Despite the state legislature’s rejection of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s eclectic approach, Professor Gluck reports that “the Connecticut Supreme Court has been very reluctant to apply the overruling statute.”330 After examining all of the relevant cases, Gluck found that “as long as the parties are arguing over statutory meaning, as litigating 323 TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 311.023 (West 2013) (“In construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous on its face, a court may consider among other matters the: (1) object sought to be attained . . . (3) legislative history . . . .”). 324 See Boykin v. State, 818 S.W.2d 782, 785-86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 325 Id. at 786 n.4 (quoting James C. Thomas, Statutory Construction when Legislation is Viewed as a Legal Institution, 3 HARV. J. LEGIS. 191, 211 n.85 (1966)). 326 See Gluck, supra note 8, at 1789. 327 Id. at 1790-91. 328 See State v. Courchesne, 816 A.2d 562, 578 (Conn. 2003). 329 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 1-2z (2003). 330 Gluck, supra note 8, at 1794. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 265 parties are likely to do, the Connecticut Supreme Court finds the text ambiguous and holds [the state interpretive code] inapplicable.”331 Moreover, she points out that because the court rarely finds the statute applicable, it has been able to avoid deciding “whether the statute unconstitutionally infringes on judicial authority, despite various hints in dicta that it might.”332 Gluck therefore correctly concludes that “Connecticut’s example underscores that resistance to legislated rules is not a textualist-only phenomenon,” and that the state judiciary’s approach “has meant that the legislated rule has had almost no practical effect.”333 While Texas and Connecticut may provide especially stark examples, Gluck and other scholars have found that state courts, as well as courts in other countries, frequently ignore codified rules of statutory interpretation, and the conventional wisdom is therefore that “courts will find ways around legislated methodological rules they do not like, and that judges may be unwilling to relinquish authority over interpretive methodology.”334 Even if courts sincerely wanted to follow codified rules of statutory interpretation, they would have significant difficulty in doing so. Commentators have pointed out that the interpretive code must itself be interpreted, and codified rules of statutory interpretation will frequently be ambiguous about whether they apply to a particular case at hand.335 This “step zero” inquiry will necessarily turn on subsidiary questions that cannot be answered solely by reference to the interpretive code,336 such as (1) whether the interpretive code should be applied retroactively; (2) whether the interpretive code is intended to displace other widely accepted norms of statutory interpretation, especially when those norms are constitutionally motivated; (3) how courts should prioritize codified rules of statutory interpretation and other widely accepted interpretive principles; (4) what should be done if there are internal conflicts within an interpretive code; and (5) what should be done if there are conflicts between the results that would be generated by applying the interpretive code and the ascertainable intent of the legislature in a particular case. These kinds of questions necessarily recreate 331 Id. at 1794-96. 332 Id. at 1797. 333 Id. 334 Id. at 1786; see also id. at 1824-29 (describing this broader trend); Tutt, supra note 269, at 2056-57 (recognizing that “often, these legislated interpretive rules fail,” and reporting that this is widely believed to be a result of judicial “reluctance, resistance, and evasion” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Widman, supra note 268, at 29 (“Regardless of claim type, judge selection, or even the substance of the code construction acts, the courts did not consistently follow these legislative directives as ‘law,’ which makes sense institutionally.”). 335 See Tutt, supra note 269, at 2059; Romero, supra note 46, at 228-47 (discussing “practical limitations on the impact of interpretive directions”). 336 See Tutt, supra note 269, at 2057-58 (discussing “the impossibility of infinite regress” in this context). 268 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 decisions more like canons, because “deference regimes operate mostly as presumptions or balancing factors evaluated by the Justices in combination with a variety of considerations.”345 Eskridge and Raso find that while “members of the Court sometimes seem to treat deference regimes (especially Chevron) as matters of stare decisis, the data establish that neither the Court nor any one of its Justices actually does so in the general run of cases.”346 In other words, none of the Justices follow the Court’s deference doctrine in a consistent and predictable way. Eskridge and Raso also claim that the canonical treatment of deference doctrine will almost certainly extend to other aspects of interpretive methodology because “statutory interpretation methodology does not seem susceptible to the rule-like approach of stare decisis”—it is fundamentally “a web of considerations with different and varying weights rather than a set of hierarchical rules.”347 Eskridge and Raso support this conclusion by pointing out that even the venerable “plain meaning rule” can be trumped by other considerations in sufficiently compelling circumstances,348 and by arguing that the application of stare decisis will not “stick” on issues of interpretive methodology, partly because reliance interests are weaker in this context and partly because courts will not let “form” dictate “substance.”349 Federal courts simply will not let methodological constraints lead them into making unreasonable legal or policy decisions, and this creates a need for continuing flexibility in deciding how to decide statutory cases. Similarly, Evan Criddle and I have recently argued that interpretive methodology is significantly different from substantive rules of law in several fundamental ways, and that it would be highly problematic for federal courts to attempt to freeze interpretive rules into place by applying stare decisis to prior methodological decisions.350 In this regard, substantive rules of law typically involve first-order rules of conduct (such as “no dogs allowed”), whereas interpretive methodology is composed primarily of second-order “rules about rules” (such as “interpret the statute by following the plain meaning of its text”), or even third-order “rules about rules about rules” (such as “defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory mandate”).351 This severely complicates the prospect of giving stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology for several reasons. First, interpretive methodology involves higher stakes than substantive rules of law because interpretive rules are used to resolve disputes about the permissible scope of countless statutes in 345 Id. at 1734-35. 346 Id. at 1751. 347 Id. at 1811. 348 See id. at 1807 (discussing Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), which invoked the avoidance canon to reach a result that was unsupported by the statutory text). 349 See id. at 1808-11, 1815-17. 350 Criddle & Staszewski, supra note 36, at 1591-95. 351 Id. at 1591. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 269 every policy area.352 Second, interpretive methodology has a significant influence on judicial reasoning and the decisions that are reached in cases of first impression.353 Any attempt to dictate a binding interpretive methodology could lead judges to reach outcomes with which they strongly disagree, and many judges will naturally and legitimately resist being forced into this type of “error.” Third, interpretive methodology is “frequently intertwined with a judge’s most fundamental beliefs about the rule of law and democracy,” and judges may understandably resist being forced to decide cases of first impression in a manner that conflicts with their understanding of the proper role of federal courts in a constitutional democracy.354 Fourth, the reliance interests that are served by the doctrine of stare decisis are typically weaker in the context of interpretive methodology than in the context of substantive law.355 Finally, “the flexibility that is provided by the current approach to statutory interpretation [in federal courts], and the broad range of arguments that are available to litigants and judges, provide affirmative benefits that improve the resolution of particular cases and make our legal system more responsive.”356 While I also agree with the bulk of Eskridge and Raso’s analysis and conclusions, they seem to suggest that interpretive methodology cannot be given stare decisis effect because interpretive methodology resists such treatment, and their argument is therefore arguably circular.357 Indeed, Professor Gluck purports to have disproved this “impossibility thesis” by providing examples of state courts that have given interpretive regimes stare 352 Id. at 1592. 353 Id. at 1592-93. 354 Id. at 1593. In an interesting twist on the debate over the value of proposals for methodological consensus, Maggie Lemos argues that interpretive methodology does not ordinarily dictate the outcomes in particular cases, but it does provide a seemingly neutral legal justification for more fundamental political views on the desirability of broader legal change. See Margaret H. Lemos, The Politics of Statutory Interpretation, 89 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 849 (2013) (reviewing SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 15). While Lemos claims that “the political nature of methodological debates highlights the importance of consensus,” she is skeptical of the likelihood “that methodological consensus will ever emerge organically from the federal courts.” Id. at 904. She also suggests that efforts to treat methodology “as ordinary law” may be misguided because of the perceived stakes of the interpretive wars for the few judges who are committed to a particular methodology. See id. at 905-06. She concludes that by raising “the temperature on methodological debates that are already overheated,” proposals for methodological stare decisis “may do more harm than good to the rule-of-law values of notice and predictability that the doctrine of stare decisis is designed to promote.” Id. at 906. 355 Criddle & Staszewski, supra note 36, at 1593-94. 356 Id. at 1594-95; see also Leib & Serota, supra note 31, at 49, 53-58, 61-62. 357 See Raso & Eskridge, supra note 64, at 1811 (claiming that “statutory interpretation methodology does not seem susceptible to the rule-like approach of stare decisis”). 270 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 decisis effect.358 Although those interpretive regimes have not been in place for long, and it is not clear that they will “stick” when the ideological composition of those courts changes,359 the disparity in treatment raises interesting questions about the institutional and cultural differences between state and federal courts. In any event, it seems clear that federal courts currently refuse to give stare decisis effect to interpretive methodology, and that whether they should continue to do so is largely a normative question. Eskridge and Raso acknowledge that “norms matter” in thinking about the legal status of interpretive methodology,360 and I would contend that federal courts should continue to treat interpretive methodology in a canonical fashion because doing so promotes all of the norms articulated in the previous Part of this Article. In particular, the current treatment of interpretive methodology recognizes the importance of avoiding the possibility of arbitrary domination, facilitates practical reasoning and the respectful treatment of diverse perspectives in interpretive litigation, allows statutory interpretation to be influenced by a wide range of public values without being unduly constrained by fixed legal norms, and allows statutory interpretation to function as a mechanism of contestatory democracy. In short, the current treatment of interpretive methodology creates a more responsive system of law, and thereby promotes freedom and democracy. C. Percolation in the Lower Courts So, federal courts are not required to follow codified rules of statutory interpretation, and interpretive methodology should not be given stare decisis effect, but shouldn’t we at least encourage lower courts to follow a simpler approach to statutory interpretation than the U.S. Supreme Court? The normative perspective developed in Part III suggests not. Professor Bruhl builds his case for “hierarchical heterogeneity” in statutory interpretation on the hierarchical nature of the judicial process, the disparities in technical capacity and resources among different levels of courts, and differences in methods of judicial selection.361 None of these differences justify restrictions 358 Gluck, supra note 8, at 1772. 359 Indeed, the Oregon Supreme Court has recently modified its interpretive framework, see State v. Gaine, 206 P.3d 1042, 1050 (Or. 2009) (“[W]e no longer will require an ambiguity in the text of a statute as a necessary predicate to the second step—consideration of pertinent legislative history that a party may proffer.”), and the Michigan Supreme Court has reversed its position on the absurdity doctrine, see Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 718 N.W.2d 784, 790-91 (Mich. 2006) (claiming that the absurdity doctrine was not implicated because there were numerous explanations for “why the Legislature could have intended the result the plain language of the statute requires”); Gluck, supra note 8, at 1807 (pointing to the four-justice majority who thought the rule against absurdities should be reinstated and who “argue[d] for the overruling of a precedent, not merely a change in nonbinding judicial philosophy”). 360 See Raso & Eskridge, supra note 64, at 1816-17. 361 See supra notes 67-82 and accompanying text. 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 273 interpretation as contestatory democracy—where the function of interpretive litigation is to give individuals or groups an opportunity to challenge the validity of governmental authority. It would therefore be fundamentally illegitimate for courts systematically to disregard or ignore the views or perspectives of the parties in reaching their decisions. The disconnect between these proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation and the actual nature of interpretive litigation is magnified in the modern regulatory state, where agencies are frequently parties, and the federal government is typically represented by the Department of Justice. The Justice Department is a repeat player in interpretive litigation involving major regulatory statutes, and it does not need to reinvent the wheel or conduct research from scratch in most of its cases. Rather, it can compile the complete legislative and regulatory histories of those statutes, along with any other information that would generally be relevant in interpretive litigation. I know from personal experience that lawyers representing the federal government in interpretive litigation in federal district court can walk over to “main Justice” to read the collected legislative history of major regulatory statutes before writing their briefs on many interpretive issues. Of course, regulatory agencies also have the resources and incentives to compile similar information on all of the major statutes they implement. The point is that economies of scale encourage the federal government to compile the type of information that is needed to interpret regulatory statutes in a pragmatic fashion. As a result, Justice Department briefs routinely provide the court with a detailed “statutory background” and “regulatory background” before addressing the precise questions at issue in the case. The court will therefore frequently have this information (as well as the relevant citations) as a matter of course in cases that require the interpretation of regulatory statutes, without exerting any time or effort beyond reading the briefs.369 369 My personal experience and intuition regarding the relative ease with which the federal government can brief the legislative history of a statute is strongly supported by Nicholas Parrillo’s recent study of the rise of legislative history in federal courts. Parrillo finds that the use of legislative history almost suddenly became routine around 1940 as a result of the work of the newly expanded New Deal regulatory state, which “was the first institution in American history capable of systematically researching and briefing legislative discourse and rendering it tractable and legible to judges on a wholesale basis.” Nicholas R. Parrillo, Leviathan and Interpretive Revolution: The Administrative State, the Judiciary, and the Rise of Legislative History, 1890-1950, 123 YALE L.J. 266, 266 (2013); see also Eskridge, supra note 233, at 425 (“I have read all the briefs filed by the Solicitor General supporting an agency interpretation in hundreds of Supreme Court cases between 1984 and 2006. Upon reading these cases, my judgment is that the agency briefs were, virtually without exception, most useful discussions of legislative history, and that executive department lawyers were skilled and relatively scrupulous in discovering and analyzing legislative history.”). In any event, my primary point is that one cannot properly assess the costs associated with competing methods of statutory interpretation without considering the role of the parties. 274 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95:209 This insight suggests that we should worry less about the resource disparities between different levels of federal courts and more about the resource disparities that often exist between the parties. When one party has better access to information than her opponent, and the party with greater resources has potential incentives to present selective information to the court, there is a danger that the court could be swayed to reach a decision that differs from the choice that would be made with full information. Moreover, this problem is less likely to occur at higher levels of the federal judiciary because cases that are pursued on appeal tend to have more resources devoted to them.370 While resource disparities pose serious problems for many aspects of litigation,371 the ubiquity of the problem does not mean that we should not be concerned about its potentially negative impact on statutory interpretation. There are a couple of reasons to believe, however, that the problem may be less significant in this context than in many others. First, the Justice Department has an ethical duty of candor, and while the government usually has no obligation to help the opposing party put its best foot forward, it cannot affirmatively mislead the court either.372 Second, the parties who challenge the government’s understanding of regulatory statutes by seeking judicial review of administrative action are frequently well-financed regulated entities.373 The opposing party therefore frequently has more resources at its disposal than the lawyers who are representing the federal government. Indeed, the propensity of regulated entities to seek judicial review of agency action is widely believed to have contributed to the ossification of informal rulemaking by administrative agencies, in a closely related context.374 Resource disparities between parties also pose a significantly less daunting problem if we return to thinking about statutory interpretation as contestatory democracy from a systemic perspective. Contestatory democracy is largely about providing individuals or groups with meaningful opportunities to be heard. We should therefore not preclude those individuals or groups from providing the information and arguments they find most persuasive. They should also be able to devote whatever resources they can to put their best feet forward. If resource constraints limit the quality of their briefing, that is unfortunate, but it does not change the fact that they have had an opportunity to 370 See Bruhl, supra note 13, at 470-73. 371 See, e.g., Marc Galanter, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 95 (1974). 372 See, e.g., United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1993) (finding that government lawyers owed the court a general duty of candor). 373 See Frank B. Cross, Shattering the Fragile Case for Judicial Review of Rulemaking, 85 VA. L. REV. 1243, 1314-18 (1998) (describing “structural biases” of litigation and claiming that challenges to regulation “are overwhelmingly” brought by regulated entities). 374 See, e.g., Thomas O. McGarity, Some Thoughts on “Deossifying” the Rulemaking Process, 41 DUKE L.J. 1385 (1992); Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Seven Ways to Deossify Agency Rulemaking, 47 ADMIN. L. REV. 59 (1995). 2015] DUMBING DOWN OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 275 challenge the legality of public authority. Moreover, they can pursue an appeal if they have the will and the way, and the case may come out differently in another judicial forum. The creation of a split within the lower courts would, in turn, likely facilitate the type of dialogue described above, and potentially result in an eventual Supreme Court decision on the issue. If that were to occur, the full range of interests and perspectives would likely be presented to the Court by the parties and a host of amici, who would all have had the opportunity to learn from the deliberations that already occurred in the lower courts.375 In any event, Professors Bruhl and Vermeule both recommend resolving ambiguities in the surface meaning of statutory text by deferring to the views of administrative agencies, and Bruhl claims that lower courts should be even more deferential than higher courts.376 This recommendation is unlikely to alleviate the resource disparities that sometimes exist between the Justice Department and its adversaries in litigation. Moreover, if lower federal courts declined to provide meaningful review of the quality of an agency’s reasoning, they would also be depriving the people who are challenging the exercise of public authority of an opportunity for contestatory democracy, and they would thereby be undermining the central function of statutory interpretation in the modern regulatory state, especially if such decisions are not appealed. The proposals to dumb down statutory interpretation are so heavily focused on finding the cheapest and easiest way to ascertain the meaning of the law, that they forget that the underlying lawsuits are typically brought to challenge the validity of agency action. Should a judge’s method of selection influence her interpretive methodology? This is an interesting and complicated question, but for present purposes a simple “probably not” should suffice. This answer is partly a function of my sense that the political accountability of elected judges is generally weak and potentially problematic, and that courts can be held deliberatively accountable by giving reasons for their decisions.377 This answer is also partly a function of my view that courts should engage in practical reasoning when they interpret statutes, and that they should therefore make decisions that reflect their understanding of the best answer on the merits under the circumstances. My sense is that although federal judges with life tenure may be better situated to achieve this ideal based on their relative insulation 375 See Krotoszynski, supra note 367, at 1082-83 (recognizing that the structure of the federal judicial system “greatly enhances process values and diffuses judicial power in a way that advances deliberation, reason-giving, and consistency among and between courts,” and claiming that “before we embrace efforts to promote higher levels of uniformity, to be achieved more quickly and more reliably, we should not fail to appreciate some of the deliberative benefits of the current system”). 376 Bruhl, supra note 13, at 494-95; see also Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Hierarchically Variable Deference to Agency Interpretations, 89 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 727 (2013). 377 Glen Staszewski, Reason-Giving and Accountability, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1253 (2009).