Interesting dissent from Judge Rosenbaum in an order denying rehearing en banc. At issue was the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which gave the states over 200 billion dollars to deal with the coronavirus pandemic. But the federal government argued there were strings attached to that funding, strings that 13 different states (including Florida) challenged. The original panel held that the feds could not enforce those conditions, relying on precedent that required such conditions to be expressed "unambiguously" and "with a clear voice."
In her dissent, Judge Rosenbaum criticized the majority for not following the US Supreme Court's approach to statutory interpretation. She wrote that "The Supreme Court has told us that 'before concluding that a [statute] is genuinely ambiguous, a court must exhaust all the traditional tools of construction'" and stressed the need to consider "the statutory context" and the "statutory structure." In response to her criticism, Judge Brasher faulted the feds for not presenting these statutory interpretation arguments in the first place.
The commentary on statutory interpretation by Judge Rosenbaum is strikingly similar to language recently used by the Florida Supreme Court. In Conage v. United States, 346 So. 3d 594, 598 (Fla. 2022), Florida Supreme Court Justice Muniz wrote that, when interpreting a statute, a court must consider “the [statutory] language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole” and that "the traditional canons of statutory interpretation can aid the interpretive process from beginning to end."
Order below.
American Rescue Plan Act Case by John Byrne on Scribd
1 comment:
It must be so frustrating for her to deal with judges who are driven by outcome uber alles - law be damned.
Post a Comment