Opinion ID: 175346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: General Repealing Clauses

Text: To effect an explicit repeal, a statute must identify the repealed statute. If it does not, a statute may still sometimes effect a repeal through the use of a general repealing clause. Sutherland § 23:8. One example of such a clause is [n]otwithstanding any other Federal law. United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court has found these phrases have the power to override other law: As we have noted previously in construing statutes, the use of such a notwithstanding clause clearly signals the drafter's intention that the provisions of the notwithstanding section override conflicting provisions of any other section. Likewise, the Courts of Appeals generally have interpreted similar notwithstanding language to supersede all other laws, stating that [a] clearer statement is difficult to imagine. Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18, 113 S.Ct. 1898, 1903, 123 L.Ed.2d 572 (1993) (citations, omission, and quotations omitted) (interpreting the clause [n]otwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract in a Section 8 landlord contract). Our Court has previously read these clauses the same way. In Castro v. Sec'y of Homeland Sec., 472 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (citing Cisneros ), our Court held that the same general repealing clause at issue here, notwithstanding any other provision of law, worked an exemption to an earlier statute concerning hiring standards for TSA screeners. [14] In Castro, the plaintiff sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), claiming that it violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by citing his history of seizures as a reason not to hire him. The district court granted DHS's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) that Congress passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks exempted DHS from the nondiscrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act. This Court affirmed, holding that the notwithstanding clause was Congress's indication that the statute containing that language is intended to take precedence over any preexisting or subsequently-enacted legislation [on the same subject]. Id. (omission and citation omitted). While this plain language alone was enough to effect a repeal, this Court also noted that ATSA specified physical requirements for security screenerscolor perception, visual and aural acuity, physical coordination, and motor skills, 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f)(1)(B)that on their face were inconsistent with the Rehabilitation Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of physical disabilities, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 472 F.3d at 1337-38. Castro directs our inquiry here both for its evaluation of the notwithstanding clause, and its plain-language approach to statutory construction. The Ninth Circuit has read this phrase the same way. In doing so, that court emphasized the importance of statutory context. Hearing an appeal to an environmental lawsuit, Consejo de Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1169 (9th Cir.2007), the Ninth Circuit held that the phrase [n]ot-withstanding any other provision of law in an omnibus tax bill exempted the United States from NEPA and ESA for purposes of lining the All American Canal without delay. The Ninth Circuit noted that the notwithstanding clause is not always applied in blanket fashion. We have repeatedly held that the phrase `notwithstanding any other provision of law' is not always construed literally. Rather, when the phrase is used, we have determined its reach by `taking into account the whole of the statutory context in which it appears.' Id. at 1168 (internal quotations and citations omitted). [15] Further complicating matters is the question of whether a general repealing clause requires the finding of a conflict between the newer and older statutes. Some courts base their finding of repeal via a general repealing clause on an irreconcilable conflict. See, e.g., Norton, 161 F.Supp.2d at 21; Sutherland § 23:8 (noting that a general repealing clause has sometimes been held to repeal because an act conflicts). In Castro, our Court noted that the two statutes were inconsistent, but said the plain language of the notwithstanding clause was by itself sufficient to support a repeal. 472 F.3d at 1337. We acknowledge that an open-ended general repealing clause carries the potential to create confusion about precisely which laws, if any, it is repealing. [16] A general repealing clause operates in the twilight between the clearer extremes of explicit and implied repeals. A general repealing clause is explicit only in the sense that it is announcing a repeal of all law or any law or federal lawsits actual reach depends on an analysis of the statutory language relevant to it. Without that careful analysis, a general repealing clause is a blunt tool prone to repeal too little or too much.