Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Justice ScaliaRhetoric and the Rule of Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Brian G. Slocum and Francis J. Mootz III

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780226601656

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: September 2019

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226601793.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use.date: 25 June 2022

Textualism without Formalism: Justice Scalia’s Statutory Interpretation Legacy

Textualism without Formalism: Justice Scalia’s Statutory Interpretation Legacy

Chapter:
(p.81) 6 Textualism without Formalism: Justice Scalia’s Statutory Interpretation Legacy
Source:
Justice Scalia
Author(s):

Abbe R. Gluck

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226601793.003.0007

Justice Scalia’s most enduring legacy is likely to be the method of statutory interpretation—“textualism”—that he brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and to all of the courts below it. With his three-decades’ worth of relentless insistence on text-focused interpretation of statutes, Justice Scalia changed the way judges of all interpretive stripes approach that task, the process ingraining in the minds of many, for better or for worse, the notion that a purpose- or pragmatism-driven approach to statutory cases was not consistent with the judicial role. Underpinning this approach from the start was Justice Scalia’s proclaimed faith in formalism, and that statutory interpretation was amenable to it. But in the end, Justice Scalia was no interpretive formalist. The rules of statutory interpretation that he advanced are not predictable, or even fully listable. Even as Justice Scalia, more than anyone else, emphasized the importance of formalism in statutory interpretation, he either never really wanted it to succeed, or did not fully appreciate its implications. The chapter asks the following questions: What would it take to make statutory interpretation truly formalist? Why did Justice Scalia’s vision fall short?

Keywords:   statutory interpretation, textualism, jurisprudence, formalism, interpretive rules

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.