Court Opinion

ID: 9776205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:24:42.847401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:06.568835
License: Public Domain

Leben, J.,
concurring: I join fully in the analysis and holdings of the excellent opinion Justice Luckert has written for the court. I write separately, however, to express my respectful disagreement with a statement regarding the interpretation of statutes that has found its way into the court’s recent cases — a statement that is contrary to the long tradition of statutory interpretation in Kansas and to the most thoughtful views of scholars in the area.
In its opinion, the court says that when an initial look at a statute’s words reveals no ambiguity, the court will not use the tools of statutory interpretation or consider even clear statements in legislative-history materials that may contradict the apparent plain meaning of the statute. It’s not clear to me that this statement has actually been decisive in any case to date, and it certainly is not decisive here. But following that view is out of step with Kansas Supreme Court opinions dating back at least to 1863, and it could lead to decisions that would seem to me both incorrectly decided and lacking in respect for the other branches of our state government.
For tire Kansas Supreme Court to lead a movement to ignore everything but the text when the text seems clear — but may in fact be contradicted by other factors the court refuses to consider — is ironic when one considers that two of the most prominent historic figures in statutory interpretation have been Kansans, and both rejected a strict textualist approach. David Brewer (who practiced law and first became a judge in Leavenworth before serving on the Kansas Supreme Court) is the only Kansas jurist to have served on the United States Supreme Court. One of his most famous opinions is also arguably the most famous statutory-interpretation case in American history, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226 (1892). In it, the Court applied the “familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers.” 143 U.S. at 459. While such a potentially broad principle must not have an unlimited application, the Holy Trinity Church case has been cited in more than 1,000 *327court decisions, including 5 in the Kansas appellate courts. E.g., Cardarella v. City of Overland Park, 228 Kan. 698, 705, 620 P.2d 1122 (1980); Billingsley v. Comm’rs of Marshall Co., 5 Kan. App. 435, 435-36, 49 P. 329 (1897). Moreover, the rule was already a familiar one in Kansas before Holy Trinity Church: Justice Brewer had used virtually the identical language in an opinion for this court in the Prohibitory-Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 700,716 (1881) (citing to Lord Coke).
More recently, a native Kansan, the late Professor Philip Frickey, revitalized the scholarly field of statutory interpretation, working with his longtime colleague, Professor William Eskridge. They have argued — convincingly, in my view — that the hardest cases in statutory interpretation are best resolved by considering all of the sources of meaning traditionally considered. See Eskridge & Frickey, Statutory Interpretation as Practical Reasoning, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 321 (1990). Frickey and Eskridge rightly acknowledge that text is clearly the most important component in determining statutory meaning — a point that had concededly been missed by some courts in the decades between Holy Trinity Church and the resurgence of scholarship in this field that Frickey and Eskridge led beginning in the 1980s. But one need not throw out all other clues to legislative intent merely to restore text to its proper position of primacy.
After all, as this court has long recognized, we are trying to determine what the legislature intended the statute to do. See, e.g., Jones v. Kansas State University, 279 Kan. 128, 145, 106 P.3d 10 (2005) (“The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained.”); State v. Bancroft, 22 Kan. 170, 204-05 (1879) (Brewer, J.) (“The cardinal canon of construction is that the [legislature’s] intent, when ascertained, governs; so that all mere rules of interpretation are subordinate.”). Thus, we have not strictly enforced the plain meaning of a statute when it was contrary to the statute’s purpose and the legislature’s intent. See, e.g., School District v. Board of County Commissioners, 201 Kan. 434, 439, 441 P.2d 875 (1968) (when literal interpretation “would contravene the manifest purpose of the legislature” a statute must instead be interpreted ac*328cording to its purpose); Motor Equipment Co. v. Winters, 146 Kan. 127, 131, 69 P.2d 23 (1937) (a court is not obligated to interpret a statute literally “when in our judgment such construction is not in harmony with the intent of the lawmakers”).
It is beyond the scope of a judicial opinion to engage in a full review of the scholarship supportive of a broader view of statutory interpretation than the court’s summary statement — that it won’t consider anything but the text when it initially seems clear — implies. But I will provide a sketch of the argument in the hope that it may help to focus future consideration of this important issue within the bar and this court, as well as by the public we serve.
In broad brush, Professors Frickey and Eskridge argue for several reasons that a strict textual approach ultimately leads to unpredictable results (which undermine respect for the rule of law). First, meaning is rarely as clear as we might suppose. A statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race may have been intended to prohibit malicious discrimination based on hatred — but the word “discriminate” can also connote a simple differentiation (as in a preference for pears over peaches). Determining whether Congress intended in lire 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit affirmative-action programs when it banned racial discrimination in hiring may depend upon one’s understanding of what discrimination is. Second, meaning may vaiy based upon objective context: Is an affirmative-action program to counter racial disparities in the workplace equally in violation of a statute prohibiting racial discrimination as would be the refusal to hire minority races at all? Third, meaning may vary based upon the interpreter’s own context, including current values. Certainly an understanding of the meaning of discrimination would have differed among different races in 1964 — and an understanding of that meaning might also have been different in 1974 when racial disparities had not been overcome in the workplace. By 1984 or 2004, an understanding of the meaning of discrimination might again differ from what it had been in 1964 given other developments both in the workplace and in the law. Similarly, whether an organization that openly discriminates on the basis of race qualifies as a charitable organization — so that contributions to it are tax-deductible — might look quite different in 2011 *329than it did in 1930 even without a change in the tax statutes. See 42 Stan. L. Rev. at 340-45.
Professors Frickey and Eskridge urge courts to consider a hierarchy of sources, giving the most weight to text but also considering legislative-histoiy materials, legislative purpose, evolution of the statutoiy scheme (e.g., have later changes in the statute added to its purposes in a way that might broaden or narrow the meaning of one of its unamended sections?), and current policy (e.g., has the country’s broad policy enacted in various statutes against racial discrimination changed the accepted — or acceptable — understandings of a statute passed in an earlier time?). See 42 Stan. L. Rev. at 345-62. As Professor Eskridge notes, all of these factors except legislative-history materials “have been staples of American statutory interpretation since the founding era.” Eskridge, No Frills Textualism, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2041, 2042, 2054 (2006). And legislative-history materials have been routinely considered at least since 1892, when Justice Brewer’s opinion in Holy Trinity Church became the first United States Supreme Court case to cite such materials.
To be sure, the Frickey and Eskridge approach is an updating of mainstream statutoiy-interpretation methods. But the principle recognized by Justice Brewer in Holy Trinity Church has long been recognized in Kansas and elsewhere, as has the willingness to use all sources of information, including legislative histoiy, when inteipreting statutes. The Kansas opinions cited throughout this concurring opinion demonstrate that Kansas has long been well within this mainstream consensus.
Fairly understood, the pragmatic approach of Frickey and Eskridge is also a textual one: analysis begins with the text, and text is considered the strongest factor. So when the text is clear, it will trump other factors. But when several other factors suggest a different meaning, the court may discover — -by considering these other factors — that the text’s meaning is not really as plain as it first appeared. When legislative histoiy, statutoiy purpose, and current public-policy norms (such as those found in other statutes or in constitutional provisions) strongly suggest a result contrary to the plain meaning, the Frickey-Eskridge method suggests that the *330apparent plain meaning may not be the final outcome. And Kansas caselaw has been consistent with that approach. As this court has said, “In determining legislative intent, courts are not limited to a mere consideration of the language used, but look to the historical background of the enactment, the circumstances attending its passage, the purpose to be accomplished and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions suggested.” State ex rel. Ludwick v. Board of Johnson County Comm’rs, 233 Kan. 79, 84, 661 P.2d 377 (1983). And after considering all of these sources, “the purpose and intent of the legislature governs ..., even though words, phrases or clauses at some place in the statute must be omitted or inserted.” 233 Kan. at 84.
I recognize that reasonable people may disagree about statutory-interpretation methodology. But I am concerned that if the words this court now uses mean what they say — for example, that we will consider canons of construction only if we first find the text unclear — then Kansas will be applying a super-strict textualism that is both contrary to the practices used by our courts since the state was founded and unwise.
Even textualist judges will normally consider canons based on linguistic understandings when determining whether the text is clear. See Eskridge, 119 Harv. L. Rev. at 2042-43; Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 404, 111 S. Ct. 2354, 115 L. Ed. 2d 348 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting). If no canons may be considered, then even linguistic canons like the punctuation rule (placement of punctuation is presumed to have meaning), the last-antecedent rule (referential words usually apply only to the last antecedent), the ex-pressio unius maxim (the expression of one thing suggests the exclusion of others), and the presumption of meaningful variation (different wording suggests different meaning) would be out of bounds. But these rules simply reflect common understandings about how our language is used and often provide useful clues to intended meaning.
More important, the super-strict textualism suggested by the court’s language leaves no room for the correction of absurd results or scrivener’s errors (the unintended mistakes most writers make while hoping a proofreader will catch them). If nothing but the *331text may be consulted — -and the text seems to have a plain meaning — how would such an error be identified?
Yet some results simply are too absurd to be considered the product of rational legislators.
Consider this example from Judge Richard Posner. Assume that the legislature makes the knowing possession of child pornography a crime and that all the State must prove is that the defendant knew he or she possessed such materials. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (2000); Posner, How Judges Think 214-15 (2008). During the prosecution of such a crime, the evidence (which is the child pornography) may be possessed by law-enforcement personnel, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, jurors, and other court personnel. Each will have knowingly possessed child pornography, and that’s all the statute requires. But it would be absurd to conclude that any of them have violated this statute.
In one state, Wyoming, the legislature included an explicit exception in its statute forbidding possession of child pornography for peace officers, court personnel, and district attorneys “engaged in the lawful performance of their official duties.” Wyo. Stat. § 6-4-303(b)(iv)(A) (2009). Thus, we know that a legislature could foresee this potentially absurd result and craft its statute to avoid it. But if the legislature doesn’t include such an exception, must the courts be powerless to provide one?
Kansas courts have previously done so. For example, in Cardarella, 228 Kan. at 705, the court considered a municipal ordinance that restricted the commercial sale or display of items identified with drug usage in areas accessible to minors. The ordinance applied to “simulated controlled substances,” which were defined to include “any products which identify themselves by using a common name or slang term associated with a controlled substance.” 228 Kan. at 700. A defendant argued that the ordinance was so overbroad that it would apply to the soft drink called “Coke.” 228 Kan. at 705. But the court rejected that argument, citing Holy Trinity Church and concluding that the ordinance shouldn’t be read to apply to products not identified with drug-related activities. As Chief Justice Nuss has noted, “[T]he Kansas Supreme Court has applied the ’absurd result’ rule for many years.” State v. Kirk*332patrick, 286 Kan. 329, 359, 184 P.3d 247 (2008) (Nuss, J., dissenting) (citing cases); see also State v. Walker, 280 Kan. 513, Syl. ¶¶ 5-6, 124 P.3d 39 (2005) (applying absurd-results rule); Miller v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 275 Kan. 349, 362, 64 P.3d 395 (2003) (plain-meaning rule is a rule of thumb based on experience, not a rule of law that precludes consideration of persuasive contrary evidence); Commerce Trust Co. v. Paulen, 126 Kan. 777, 780, 271 P. 388 (1928) (courts may depart from literal construction of statutes to avoid absurd results).
Consider another of the classic absurd-results cases, United States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. (7 Wall) 482, 19 L. Ed. 278 (1868). Kirby, a local sheriff, received a warrant to arrest a man named Farris for murder. But Farris was a mail carrier, and Congress had made it a federal crime to knowingly obstruct or delay a mail carrier. Kirby arrested Farris while he was delivering mail, and Kirby was charged with the federal offense of obstructing the mail. A unanimous Supreme Court held that “[t]he reason of the law . . . should prevail over its letter” so as to avoid “an absurd consequence” that Congress surely did not intend. 74 U.S. at 486-87. The Court relied upon two European precedents to support the absurd-results exception to plain meaning: (1) that a medieval surgeon who opened the vein of a person who fell down on the street in a fit would not be held to violate an Italian law against street violence that said that “whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity”; and (2) that a prisoner who broke out of prison during a fire could not be punished for the escape because common sense says that the prisoner may not “be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt.” 74 U.S. at 487 (quoting Edmund Plowden, who reported English cases during Elizabethan times, in the second example).
Examples like these are typical of ones in which questions of statutory interpretation often arise. The legislature has passed a statute designed to deal with a particular problem, and it has fashioned the language to fit tire typical sorts of cases it had in mind. But the language could easily apply in other, less typical, situations, and it’s not clear — the “plain language” of the statute notwithstanding — whether the legislature really intended for it to apply in these *333unanticipated situations. In such cases, courts wisely look to all available sources to try to confirm whether the legislature really meant the statute to apply to the unanticipated situation. See Solan, The Language of Statutes 48-49, 80, 222, 226 (2010).
Perhaps I read too much into this court’s language in recent cases rather than its holdings. In State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 217 P.3d 15 (2009), for example, even though the court recited the rule that it won’t go beyond plain language, the court found a scrivener’s error and examined legislative-history materials. But there was not only an arguable ambiguity in the statute but also a statutory fix that had taken place before the decision in Trautloff (but after the underlying conviction in the Trautloff case). In addition, even when citing its recent only-look-at-the-plain-language rule, the court has sometimes considered legislative-history materials even after finding a statute unambiguous. See Phillips v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 289 Kan. 521, 526-27, 213 P.3d 1066 (2009).
One of the stated rationales for strict textualism is that it will encourage the legislative branch to do a better job in drafting statutes. But there are at least four problems with this proposition.
First, the legislative process is inherently incapable of perfection. Bills usually pass through committees in two chambers, then are heard on the floor of each chamber, and often are reconciled in a conference committee. Whether or not the legislative process is like making sausage, it’s not tidy.
Second, legislators simply can’t anticipate all of the potential situations in which a statute may be applied, especially as times change. Judge Posner has noted the realistically impossible burden super-strict textualism places on legislators:
“Strict construction, along with its textualist-originalist variants, would place an unbearable information load on our legislatures. It would require them to be able to anticipate not only every quirky case that might arise to exploit ambiguities in statutory language but also every future change in society (such as the advent of the telephone or the Internet) that might make a state or constitutional provision drafted without awareness of the change fail to achieve the provision’s aim.” Posner, How Judges Think 198.
Third, there is no evidence legislatures can or will respond as envisioned. Even if it were possible for the legislative process to *334respond to court challenges to write better, clearer statutes, there is no empirical evidence that any legislature has improved its performance in response to a court practicing strict textualism. Moreover, coming up with a sufficient legislative coalition to pass a bill fixing a language error is much different than coming up with one to pass a substantive bill in the first place.
Fourth, the vast majority of statutes now on the books were passed while the Kansas Supreme Court was applying a consistent approach under which it examined all clues for a statute’s meaning and explicitly trimmed back statutes when literal application clearly exceeded the legislature’s desired ends. To the extent that the legislature does respond to our statutory-interpretation approach when it drafts and passes statutes, adopting a dramatically different interpretative approach now and applying it to statutes already on the books runs contrary to long-encouraged legislative expectations. There can be little doubt that our legislature has expected a continuation of past practice in this area: K.S.A. 77-109, a statute in place since 1923, provides that “any general statute of this state . . . shall be liberally construed to promote [its] object.”
So what happens when the court adheres only to an apparent plain meaning and refuses to use all the tools available to it to determine legislative intent? Unintended and inequitable results will surely occur. And even if the legislature does fix some or most of the errors found, those litigants whose cases are decided in the interim still will suffer unintended and inequitable results.
Indeed, under such an interpretive regime, the sheriff in Kirby would have been sent to federal prison for arresting a mail carrier on a murder warrant before the suspect had finished his mail route. Congress would surely have amended the statute, but since statutes operate prospectively, that would have saved only future sheriffs, not the one who had arrested Kirby. There would be many more cases in which our court says, as it did recently, that the result it has reached when applying a statute’s plain meaning “may appear somewhat nonsensical.” Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 292 Kan. 17, 23, 248 P.3d 1287, 1291 (2011).
We need not go this route. After all, until quite recently, this court has used all of the standard interpretive tools at its disposal, *335something it had done for as long as our courts have existed: in the very first volume of our reported decisions, the court considered a statute’s purpose to determine legislative intent and the statute’s meaning, noting that legislative intent “is to be ascertained by all legitimate methods of interpretation.” Jones v. State of Kansas, ex rel. Atherby and Kingsbury, 1 Kan. 273, 279 (1863). That same approach was advocated by the great Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall: “Where the mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes eveiy thing from which aid can be derived.” United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358, 386, 2 L. Ed. 304 (1805); accord Patterson v. Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 173, 23 S. Ct. 821, 47 L. Ed. 1002 (1903) (Brewer, J.) (quoting Fisher); Ftoly Trinity Church, 143 U.S. at 462 (same).
One of the values of precedent is that we are able to rely upon the collective wisdom of those who have gone before us — -judges who have literally considered thousands of cases over decades and, here, even centuries. Let us follow that collective wisdom and consider all potential clues to legislative intent and statutory meaning, all the while recognizing the primacy of the text.