Law Commons^™

High-Stakes Interpretation, Ryan D. Doerfler

All Faculty Scholarship

Courts look at text differently in high-stakes cases. Statutory language that would otherwise be ‘unambiguous’ suddenly becomes ‘less than clear.’ This, in turn, frees up courts to sidestep constitutional conflicts, avoid dramatic policy changes, and, more generally, get around undesirable outcomes. The standard account of this behavior is that courts’ failure to recognize ‘clear’ or ‘unambiguous’ meanings in such cases is motivated or disingenuous, and, at best, justified on instrumentalist grounds.

This Article challenges that account. It argues instead that, as a purely epistemic matter, it is more difficult to ‘know’ what a text means—and, hence, more difficult to regard …

Bond And The Vienna Rules, Roger P. Alford

Journal Articles

This Article briefly outlines the Court’s holding in Bond, and the general framework of interpretation set forth in the Vienna Rules. It then looks at Supreme Court jurisprudence that is consonant with the Vienna Rules. The Article then analyzes Bond’s interpretive approach using the Vienna Rules methodology. It concludes with reflections on the future of Supreme Court treaty interpretation and how that interpretation could avoid reaching the constitutional question of the scope of the treaty power.

The Bond Court's Institutional Truce, Monica Hakimi

Articles

As many readers are aware, Bond v. United States is a quirky case. The federal government prosecuted under the implementing legislation for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) a betrayed wife who used chemical agents to try to harm her husband’s lover. The wife argued that, as applied to her, the implementing legislation violated the Tenth Amendment. She thus raised difficult questions about the scope of the treaty power and of Congress’s authority to implement treaties through the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Bond Court avoided those questions with a clear statement rule: “we can insist on a clear indication that …