Legislative History

AuthorJeffrey Lehman, Shirelle Phelps

Page 262

The discussions and documents, including committee reports, hearings, and floor debates, surrounding and preceding the enactment of a law.

Legislative history includes earlier, similar bills introduced but not passed by the legislature; legislative and executive reports and studies regarding the legislation; transcripts from legislative committee hearings and reports from the committees; and floor debates on the bill.

The legislative history of a statute is a unique form of secondary legal authority. It is not binding on courts in the way that primary authority is. Federal and state constitutions, statutes, case law (judicial decisions), and agency regulations form the body of primary authority that courts use to resolve disputes. As secondary authority, legislative history is used only to decipher the precise meaning behind an ambiguous statute or statutory provision.

For example, suppose Congress passes a CRIMINAL LAW requiring that all persons under age 18 who appear in public after sundown must carry a federal identification card, which must be produced for law enforcement officers on demand. If the statute contains no definition of the phrase "in public," a court faced with a case brought under it may have to consult the legislative history to determine precisely where minors may venture without the identification card.

The value of legislative history in the law is similar to that of academic treatises: both are extrinsic aids. Lawyers may use favorable language from legislative history and academic treatises when they are presenting arguments to a court, and courts may use it when they are attempting to interpret a statute.

In some countries, such as England, courts may not consider secondary sources in making any decision. In these countries the potential for judicial abuse of a secondary source such as legislative history is considered an unacceptable risk to the legislative and judicial processes. The fear is that a judge could use one particularly unrepresentative statement from a lengthy legislative debate to incorrectly interpret a statute.

North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 102 S. Ct. 1912, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299 (1982), illustrates why legislative history is of secondary importance. The question in Bell was whether a federal statute (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq.) barred gender-based discrimination in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT