z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Doctrine of Clarifications
Author(s) -
Pat McDonell
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
michigan law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.41
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1939-8557
pISSN - 0026-2234
DOI - 10.36644/mlr.119.4.doctrine
Subject(s) - statutory interpretation , statute , presumption , lawmaking , doctrine , law , statutory law , legislation , political science , interpretation (philosophy) , common law , judicial interpretation , legislative intent , law and economics , legislature , sociology , philosophy , linguistics
Clarifications are a longstanding but little-studied concept in statutory interpretation. Most courts have found that clarifying amendments to preexisting statutes bypass retroactivity limitations. Therein lies their power. Because clarifications simply restate the law, they do not implicate the presumption against retroactivity that Landgraf v. USI Film Products embedded in civil-statute interpretation. The problem that courts have yet to address is how exactly clarifying legislation can be distinguished from legislation that substantively changes the law. What exactly is a clarification? The courts’ answers implicate many of the entrenched debates in statutory interpretation. This Note offers three primary contributions. First, it summarizes the existing doctrine of clarifications as it has been established in the federal circuits and highlights the important implications of their approaches. Second, it argues that clarifications are an important tool for courts and lawmaking bodies. Third, it provides a more intelligible taxonomy for courts to use, including specific factors that ought to guide their determination of whether an amendment clarifies the law.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here