From Congress to the Courts: Interest Groups and Legislative History Usage

• In Event: Poster Session: Public Administration & Law and Courts
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Law and Courts: Issues in Judicial Politics and Judicial Behavior

Abstract

Do special interests influence the courts through language in congressional committee reports? In judicial decision making, the primary role of the courts is to interpret the meaning of a statute as it was intended by the legislative body. While there are several ways to ensure the courts ascertain legislative intent, there is no consensus as to the correct approach to statutory interpretation (McDonald, 1991). Some justices have been supportive of “the plain meaning rule”, while others follow a more flexible approach to interpretation. For example, Justice Scalia is a strong detractor of the use of legislative history. In contrast, Justice Brennan (1989) has been one of the main supporters of consulting legislative history to ascertain the meaning of a statute. Through supervised textual analysis of Supreme Court opinions and congressional memos between 1999 and 2010, this paper investigates the process in which language inserted in congressional committee reports, sometimes at the suggestion of interest groups, makes into justice’s opinions. To assess the relationship between interest groups and the use of legislative history entails two levels of analysis. First, I establish a connection between court opinions and use of legislative history through committee reports. Second, I inquire into the connection between committee reports and interest groups. I use all four types of opinions, since this is not about the majority opinion, but rather the conditions under which the judicial decision-making process is influenced by organized interests through legislative history. The findings of this research add nuance to our understanding of the mechanisms that influence and shape public policy through the judicial branch.

Author

• Sahar Abi-Hassan, Boston University