Opinion ID: 175346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Implied Repeals

Text: A statute effecting an implied repeal, also known as a repeal by implication or implicit repeal, [17] does not identify the statute it is repealing. Nor does it have a general repealing clause, like the notwithstanding clause at issue here. What is key is the legislature's demonstration of intent to repeal a pre-existing law. Sutherland § 23:9. Congress's intent to effect an implied repeal can be inferred when a later statute conflicts with or is repugnant to an earlier statute; or when a newer statute covers the whole subject of the earlier one, and clearly is intended as a substitute. See United States v. Devall, 704 F.2d 1513, 1518 (11th Cir.1983); see also Tug Allie-B, Inc. v. United States, 273 F.3d 936, 951 (11th Cir.2001) (Black, J., concurring) (listing cases requiring a positive repugnancy between two statutes as a precondition for finding an implied repeal). Therefore for an implied repeal, a conflict is a minimum requirement, rather than the helpful sign of legislative intent supporting a general repealing clause. The Eleventh Circuit has held that when two statutes conflict, the later-enacted statute controls to the extent it conflicts with the earlier-enacted statute. Nguyen v. United States, 556 F.3d 1244, 1252-53 (11th Cir.2009). Moreover, a specific statutory provision trumps a general one. Id. at 1253. The conclusion that two statutes conflict, however, is one that courts must not reach lightly. If any interpretation permits both statutes to stand, the court must adopt that interpretation, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary. Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1266 (11th Cir.2006). Courts must first assiduously attempt to try to construe two statutes in harmony before concluding that one impliedly repeals the other. Tug Allie-B, 273 F.3d at 952. Because a repeal by implication requires the most speculation about the intent of Congress, there is a presumption against finding one. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 189, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2299, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) (concluding that Congress's repeated appropriations bills funding construction of a dam did not impliedly repeal ESA protection for a new species of fish endangered by the project); Patel v. Quality Inn S., 846 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1988) (Only when Congress' intent to repeal or amend is clear and manifest will we conclude that a later act implicitly repeals or amends an earlier one.); see also Tug Allie-B, 273 F.3d at 959 (noting the principles of judicial restraint and separation of powers which underlie the particularly high standard required for an implicit repeal). This presumption against repeal by implication applies with even greater force to an appropriations bill, because legislators are entitled to assume that they only appropriate money for lawful purposes. TVA, 437 U.S. at 190, 98 S.Ct. at 2300. Congress has the power to effect a repeal through an appropriations billCongress just needs to be clear it is doing so. United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 222, 101 S.Ct. 471, 484, 66 L.Ed.2d 392 (1980).