Modern textualism has long criticized the use of practical, or consequentialist, reasoning when construing statutes. And yet in practice, textualist jurists have long invoked practical consequences arguments to help justify their statutory constructions. This article examines the tension at the core of the textualist project and what it reveals about the future of statutory interpretation.
Read at Harvard Law Review →JLR Review coming soon. The Judicial Law Review will publish its own scholarly response to this article in Volume I. Submit a response or related piece →
We welcome submissions from law students across the nation. Rolling admissions reviewed weekly by our editorial board.