Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-481_5426.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8  FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE v. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA 

Opinion of the Court 

National  Parks  test.  See  Contract  Freighters,  Inc.  v. 
Secretary  of  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Transp.,  260  F.  3d  858,  861 
(CA8 2001) (collecting cases).

We cannot approve such a casual disregard of the rules
of  statutory  interpretation.    In  statutory  interpretation 
disputes,  a  court’s  proper  starting  point  lies  in  a  careful
examination of the ordinary meaning and structure of the 
law itself.  Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. 
Kirk,  563  U. S.  401,  407  (2011).    Where,  as  here,  that 
examination  yields  a  clear  answer,  judges  must  stop. 
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 438 (1999). 
Even those of us who sometimes consult legislative history 
will  never  allow  it  to  be  used  to  “muddy”  the  meaning  of 
“clear  statutory  language.”  Milner,  562  U. S.,  at  572. 
Indeed,  this  Court  has  repeatedly  refused  to  alter  FOIA’s 
plain terms on the strength only of arguments from legis-
lative history.  See, e.g., Landano, 508 U. S., at 178 (refus-
ing to expand the plain meaning of Exemption 7(D) based 
on  legislative  history);  Weber  Aircraft,  465  U. S.,  at  800– 
803  (refusing  to  restrict  Exemption  5  based on  legislative
history). 

National  Parks’  contrary  approach  is  a  relic  from  a
“bygone  era  of  statutory  construction.”    Brief  for  United 
States as Amicus Curiae 19.  Not only did National Parks 
inappropriately resort to legislative history before consult-
ing the statute’s text and structure, once it did so it went 
even  further  astray.  The  court  relied  heavily  on  state-
ments  from  witnesses  in  congressional  hearings  years 
earlier on a different bill that was never enacted into law. 
498 F. 2d, at 767–769.  Yet we can all agree that “excerpts
from committee hearings” are “ ‘among the least illuminat-
ing  forms  of  legislative  history.’ ”    Advocate  Health  Care 
Network v. Stapleton, 581 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 
12);  see  also  Kelly  v.  Robinson,  479  U. S.  36,  51,  n. 13 
(1986) (declining to “accord any significance” to “comments 
in  [legislative]  hearings”).    Perhaps  especially  so  in  cases