II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1747 

To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the 

interpretation of Acts of Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2007 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements 

in the interpretation of Acts of Congress. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Presidential Signing 

5 Statements Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) While the executive branch has a role in en9 acting legislation, it is clear that this is a limited 

10 role. Article I, section 7 of the Constitution provides 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1747 IS

1 that when a bill is presented to the President, he 

2 may either sign it or veto it with his objections, and 

3 his veto is subject to a congressional override by 

4 two-thirds majorities in the House of Representa5 tives and Senate. 

6 (2) As the President signs a bill into law, the 

7 President sometimes issues a statement elaborating 

8 on his views of a bill. 

9 (3) This practice began in the early 1800s, and 

10 such statements have been issued by Presidents in11 cluding James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, John 

12 Tyler, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisen13 hower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Rich14 ard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald 

15 Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and 

16 George W. Bush. 

17 (4) Much more recently, some courts have 

18 begun using presidential signing statements as a 

19 source of authority in the interpretation of Acts of 

20 Congress. 

21 (5) This judicial use of presidential signing 

22 statements is inappropriate, because it in effect gives 

23 these statements the force of law. As the Supreme 

24 Court itself has explained, Article I, section 7, of the 

25 Constitution provides a ‘‘single, finely wrought and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 1747 IS

1 exhaustively considered, procedure’’ for the making 

2 of Federal law. I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 951 

3 (1983). Presidential signing statements are not 

4 passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to Ar5 ticle I, section 7, so they are not the supreme law 

6 of the land. It is inappropriate, therefore, for courts 

7 to rely on presidential signing statements as a 

8 source of authority in the interpretation of Acts of 

9 Congress. 

10 (6) The Supreme Court’s reliance on presi11 dential signing statements has been sporadic and 

12 unpredictable. In some cases, such as Bowsher v. 

13 Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 719 n.1 (1986), the Supreme 

14 Court has relied on presidential signing statements 

15 as a source of authority, while in other cases, such 

16 as the recent military tribunals case, Hamdan v. 

17 Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), it has conspicu18 ously declined to do so. This inconsistency has the 

19 unfortunate effect of rendering the interpretation of 

20 Federal law unpredictable. 

21 (7) As the Hamdan case demonstrates, the Jus22 tices of the Supreme Court appear to disagree with 

23 one another on the propriety of reliance on presi24 dential signing statements in the interpretation of 

25 Federal law. The Supreme Court, with its nine comVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:22 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1747.IS S1747

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
4 

•S 1747 IS

1 peting perspectives and its jurisdictional restriction 

2 to cases and controversies, may remain unable to re3 solve this difference of opinion and establish a clear 

4 rule abjuring such reliance. 

5 (8) Congress has the power to resolve judicial 

6 disputes such as this by enacting rules of statutory 

7 interpretation. This power flows from Article I, sec8 tion 8, clause 18, which gives Congress the power 

9 ‘‘To make all laws which shall be necessary and 

10 proper for carrying into execution the foregoing pow11 ers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution 

12 in the government of the United States, or in any 

13 department or officer thereof’’. Rules of statutory 

14 interpretation are necessary and proper to bring into 

15 execution the legislative power. 

16 (9) Congress can and should exercise this power 

17 over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a sys18 tematic and comprehensive manner. 

19 (10) Congress hereby exercises this power to 

20 forbid judicial reliance on presidential signing state21 ments as a source of authority in the interpretation 

22 of Acts of Congress. 

23 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

24 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘presidential signing 

25 statement’’ means a statement issued by the President 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
5 

•S 1747 IS

1 about a bill, in conjunction with signing that bill into law 

2 pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution. 

3 SEC. 4. JUDICIAL USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATE4 MENTS. 

5 In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 

6 no Federal or State court shall rely on or defer to a presi7 dential signing statement as a source of authority. 

8 SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN 

9 COURT PROCEEDINGS OR SUBMIT CLARI10 FYING RESOLUTION. 

11 (a) CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AS

12 AMICUS CURIAE.—In any action, suit, or proceeding in 

13 any Federal or State court (including the Supreme Court 

14 of the United States), regarding the construction or con15 stitutionality, or both, of any Act of Congress in which 

16 a presidential signing statement was issued, the Federal 

17 or State Court shall permit the United States Senate, 

18 through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, as authorized 

19 in section 701 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

20 (2 U.S.C. 288), or the United States House of Represent21 atives, through the Office of General Counsel for the 

22 United States House of Representatives, or both, to par23 ticipate as an amicus curiae, and to present an oral argu24 ment on the question of the Act’s construction or constitu25 tionality, or both. Nothing in this section shall be conVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:22 Jun 30, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1747.IS S1747

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
6 

•S 1747 IS

1 strued to confer standing on any party seeking to bring, 

2 or jurisdiction on any court with respect to, any civil or 

3 criminal action, including suit for court costs, against 

4 Congress, either House of Congress, a Member of Con5 gress, a committee or subcommittee of a House of Con6 gress, any office or agency of Congress, or any officer or 

7 employee of a House of Congress or any office or agency 

8 of Congress. 

9 (b) CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO SUBMIT CLARIFYING

10 RESOLUTION.—In any suit referenced in subsection (a), 

11 the full Congress may pass a concurrent resolution declar12 ing its view of the proper interpretation of the Act of Con13 gress at issue, clarifying Congress’s intent or clarifying 

14 Congress’s findings of fact, or both. If Congress does pass 

15 such a concurrent resolution, the Federal or State court 

16 shall permit the United States Congress, through the Of17 fice of Senate Legal Counsel, to submit that resolution 

18 into the record of the case as a matter of right. 

19 (c) EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION.—It shall be the 

20 duty of each Federal or State court, including the Su21 preme Court of the United States, to advance on the dock22 et and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the dis23 position of any matter brought under subsection (a). 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS