Presidential signing statements are creeping into judicial opinions with increasing frequency, leading to a resurgence of interest in the issue and several attempts, by Congress and others, to limit the use of signing statements or to challenge their constitutionality. This Note contends that the paramount separation of powers concern raised by signing statements is the conference of legislative power in the hands of the President through judicial consideration of signing statements in interpreting statutes. By analogizing signing statements to agency interpretations, this Note proposes the use of the Chevron framework as an analytical tool to guide courts in evaluating signing statements. Such use of the Chevron framework is consistent with the doctrine’s underlying rationales and works to minimize subjectivity in judicial analysis through Chevron’s requirements of statutory ambiguity and interpretive reason.
Volume 91 - No. 6
- Note: Big Enough To Matter: Whether Statistical Significance or Practical Significance Should Be the Test for Title VII Disparate Impact Claims
- Note: Of Mosquitoes, Adolescents, and Reproductive Rights: Public Health and Reproductive Risks in a Genomic Age
- Note: Payments on Debt After Discharge: When a Discharge Is Not Really a Discharge and the Limits of Taxpayer Recourse
- Inherent National Sovereignty Constitutionalism: An Original Understanding of the U.S. Constitution
- Reproduction Reconceived
© 2011-2016 Minnesota Law Review. All Rights Reserved.