Legislative history involves the proceedings in Congress that relate to a law before it was actually enacted. This can include official reports prepared by congressional committees as well as official statements that are issued by members of Congress.
Legislative history may also include testimony given at legislative hearings, and different versions of the text of a bill as it was shaped through the legislative process.
While legislative history can provide a wealth of information, it can also be problematic when it is used as evidence of legislative intent. One of the reasons for this is that a committee report only provides the view of a few legislators that belong to one chamber. Furthermore, an individual statement only offers the view of that single member.
Due to the number of problems that can arise from legislative history, a court typically only uses legislative history as a guide to intent when it must make a decision between multiple possible plausible meanings.
Courts sometimes look to legislative history even if there is only one possible meaning. This can sometimes occur for the purpose of confirming the plain meaning. The Supreme Court has been consistent in saying that legislative history can be used as evidence for legislative intent, provided that it is not used for the purpose of overturning a plain meaning.
What is the meaning of “plain meaning”? The plain meaning of a statute refers to the “ordinary or natural meaning.” Natural meaning refers to a meaning that is not literal but is instead the common sense meaning. The ordinary meaning of a statute refers to the meaning in terms of an idiomatic sense or the same way that an ordinary person might commonly speak.
When the Court uses legislative history as evidence of legislative intent, it is usually for the purpose of reinforcing or confirming plain meaning. The Court typically understands that the views that are expressed by certain members of Congress are not the views of Congress as a whole. With that said, the views of some members of Congress can help to shape the views of others and even influence votes. As a result, legislative history can be important not because of what was previously written or said by lawmakers, but because it was read or heard by other lawmakers.
To learn more about legislative history, consider our course, How to Research and Compile Legislative Histories; Searching for Legislative Intent, and our publication Statutory Construction and Interpretation.
Reference: Section 3.72 Legislative History: Why It is Problematic, in Legislative Drafter’s Deskbook, by Tobias Dorsey.
- Congressional Operations Briefing – Capitol Hill Workshop
- Drafting Federal Legislation and Amendments
- Writing for Government and Business: Critical Thinking and Writing
- Custom, On-Site Training
- Drafting Effective Federal Legislation and Amendments in a Nutshell, Audio Course on CD
- Congress, the Legislative Process, and the Fundamentals of Lawmaking Series, a Nine-Course series on CD
Legislative Drafter’s Deskbook: A Practical Guide
Citizen’s Handbook to Influencing Elected Officials: A Guide for Citizen Lobbyists and Grassroots Advocates
CongressionalGlossary.com, from TheCapitol.Net
For more than 40 years, TheCapitol.Net and its predecessor, Congressional Quarterly Executive Conferences, have been teaching professionals from government, military, business, and NGOs about the dynamics and operations of the legislative and executive branches and how to work with them.
Our on-site training, publications, and audio courses include congressional operations, legislative and budget process, communication and advocacy, media and public relations, testifying before Congress, research skills, legislative drafting, critical thinking and writing, and more.
TheCapitol.Net is on the GSA Schedule, 874-4, for custom on-site training. GSA Contract GS02F0192X
TheCapitol.Net is a non-partisan small business.
Teaching how Washington and Congress work ™