Document Type


Publication Title

Brooklyn Law Review

Publication Date



The article questions the persistent argument of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia that statutory language should be enough for courts to determine the outcome of a case. It points out how statutory language is often unclear by exploring personal experiences of selected judges in U.S. appellate court cases such as Holy Trinity Church v. United States and United States v. Marshall. It explains how probative legislative history had been used in interpreting unclear statutes.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.