II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3731 

To regulate the judicial use of presidential signing statements in the 

interpretation of Acts of Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2006 

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 2006’’. 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

S 3731 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

S 3731 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 23:40 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 049196 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3731.IS S3731

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
4 

S 3731 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) As recently explained in the Harvard Law 

6 Review, Congress has power to resolve judicial dis7 putes such as this by enacting Federal rules of stat8 utory interpretation. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, 

9 Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 

10 Harv. L. Rev. 2085 (2002). This power flows from 

11 Article I, section 8, cl. 18, which gives Congress the 

12 power ‘‘To make all laws which shall be necessary 

13 and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 

14 powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitu15 tion in the government of the United States, or in 

16 any department or officer thereof’’. Federal rules of 

17 statutory interpretation are necessary and proper to 

18 bring into execution the legislative power. 

19 (9) Congress can and should exercise this power 

20 over the interpretation of Federal statutes in a sys21 tematic and comprehensive manner. 

22 (10) Congress hereby exercises this power to 

23 forbid judicial reliance on presidential signing state24 ments as a source of authority in the interpretation 

25 of Acts of Congress. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
5 

S 3731 IS

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITION. 

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

3 statement’’ means a statement issued by the President 

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

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

6 SEC. 4. JUDICIAL USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATE7 MENTS. 

8 In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, 

9 no State or Federal court shall rely on or defer to a presi10 dential signing statement as a source of authority. 

11 SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL STANDING TO OBTAIN DECLARA12 TORY JUDGMENT. 

13 Any court of the United States, upon the filing of 

14 an appropriate pleading by the United States Senate, 

15 through the Office of Senate Legal Counsel, and/or the 

16 United States House of Representatives, through the Of17 fice of General Counsel for the United States House of 

18 Representatives, may declare the legality of any presi19 dential signing statement, whether or not further relief is 

20 or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the 

21 force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall 

22 be reviewable as such. 

23 SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE OR SUBMIT 

24 CLARIFYING RESOLUTION. 

25 Chapter 9D of title 2, United States Code, is amend26 ed by adding at the end the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
6 

S 3731 IS

1 ‘‘§ 288o 

2 ‘‘(a) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—In any action, suit, or 

3 proceeding in the Supreme Court of the United States, 

4 wherein the construction or constitutionality of any Act 

5 of Congress in which a presidential signing statement was 

6 issued, the Supreme Court shall certify such fact to the 

7 Office of Senate Legal Counsel and to the Office of Gen8 eral Counsel for the United States House of Representa9 tives. 

10 ‘‘(b) CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE.—In 

11 any suit referenced in subsection (a), the Supreme Court 

12 shall permit the United States Senate, through the Office 

13 of Senate Legal Counsel, and/or the United States House 

14 of Representatives, through the Office of General Counsel 

15 for the United States House of Representatives, to inter16 vene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise 

17 admissible in the case, and for argument on the question 

18 of the Act’s construction and/or constitutionality. The 

19 United States Senate and House of Representatives shall, 

20 subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the 

21 rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party 

22 as to court costs to the extent necessary for a proper pres23 entation of the facts and law relating to the question of 

24 constitutionality. Nothing in this chapter shall be con25 strued to confer standing on any party seeking to bring, 

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


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
7 

S 3731 IS

1 criminal action, including suit for court costs, against 

2 Congress, either House of Congress, a Member of Con3 gress, a committee or subcommittee of a House of Con4 gress, any office or agency of Congress, or any officer or 

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

6 of Congress. 

7 ‘‘(c) CONGRESSIONAL RIGHT TO SUBMIT CLARI8 FYING RESOLUTION.—In any suit referenced in subsection 

9 (a), the full Congress may pass a concurrent resolution 

10 declaring its view of the proper interpretation of the Act 

11 of Congress at issue, clarifying Congress’s intent, and/or 

12 clarifying Congress’s findings of fact. If Congress does 

13 pass such a concurrent resolution, the Supreme Court 

14 shall permit the United States Congress, through the Of15 fice of Senate Legal Counsel, to submit that resolution 

16 into the record of the case as a matter of right.’’. 

17 SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL. 

18 (a) Section 288b(c) of title 2, United States Code, 

19 is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 2403 of title 28 of 

20 the United States Code’’ after ‘‘under section 288e of this 

21 title’’; 

22 (b) Section 288j(a)(1) of title 2, United States Code, 

23 is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 2403 of title 28 of 

24 the United States Code’’ after ‘‘pursuant to section 288b 

25 of this title’’; and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
8 

S 3731 IS

1 (c) Section 288j(a)(2) of title 2, United States Code, 

2 is amended by inserting ‘‘or section 2403 of title 28 of 

3 the United States Code’’ after ‘‘pursuant to section 

4 288b(a) of this title’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS