Court Opinion

ID: 9731286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:41:22.992777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:16.762146
License: Public Domain

PERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring in the result:
I agree with most of Judge SCHWELB’S analysis, but I concur only in the result, not in his opinion, because I cannot accept what I perceive to be the determinative emphasis he places on section 2(d) of the Council’s Emergency Declaration Resolution of 1989 stating that the 1986 Council “never intended the [Good Time Credits] Act to apply to persons convicted of first degree murder.” Ante at 577.
I.
It may be true, in some instances, that “[subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to great weight in statutory construction.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 380-81, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1801, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969).14 But many, if not most, canons of statutory construction are offset by equally forceful counter-canons.15 Thus, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court often has said “the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.” United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313, 80 S.Ct. 326, 331-32, 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960), quoted in McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744, 750 n. 12 (D.C.1978).16 Depend*580ing on the circumstances, therefore, a reviewing court may — or may not — find significance in the postenactment views of legislators who purport to express the understanding of an earlier legislature that enacted the statute at issue.
Judge SCHWELB justifies reliance on the Council’s 1989 resolution to reveal the 1986 Council’s intent underlying the Time Credits Act for three reasons: “[Relatively little time elapsed between the enactment of the GTCA and the Council’s actions in 1989,” “[m]ost of the legislators were members of the Council at both relevant times,” and “[t]he Council responded swiftly, unambiguously and unanimously to the decision in Cunningham.”17 Ante at 578. Although Judge SCHWELB’S first two reasons tend to support his argument, the third — the Council’s swift, negative reaction to Cunningham — substantially undermines it.
I believe a postenactment declaration of legislative intent, clearly intended to affect pending litigation, is inherently suspect. Even if the declaration truly reflects earlier legislative intent, (which may or may not reflect the intent of the Mayor in signing, and the Congress in not vetoing the legislation), it appears to be intended to affect judicial review. I have no reason to believe that the motives behind the 1989 Council declaration were not entirely honorable. It is not difficult, however, to imagine that a legislative body on some other occasion— confronted by a public outcry against a trial court decision interpreting ambiguous legislation to create a very unpopular right — could conveniently, and retroactively, find an intent that had never been thought of, let alone declared, at the time of enactment, and thereby cause erasure of what the reviewing court otherwise, using appropriate interpretive tools, might have found to be a newly established right. The analysis Judge SCHWELB employs here could apply to that kind of situation as well. From that perspective, a speedy postenactment reaction by a legislature comprised mostly of members who had voted on the earlier enactment could appear to be primarily an effort to protect the legislators’ own interests at the polls, rather than to reflect their earlier intention — or more likely their earlier lack of intention — applicable to the issue later presented.
I do not go so far as to say that posten-actment legislative views should never be accorded weight; clearly the caselaw permits this on occasion. Compare supra note 1 with supra note 8. I express concern here only about legislative declarations clearly intended to affect pending litigation — a situation that may present temptation to compromise honesty with expediency. Accordingly, rather than make a postenactment declaration, such as the 1989 resolution, determinative — as Judge SCHWELB does — I would relegate it to corroborative or derogative evidence at best after resolving the matter on the basis of the statutory language, aided as necessary by legislative history and applicable canons of statutory construction.
II.
In this case we have two statutes to review. The District of Columbia Good Time Credits Act of 1986, D.C.Code §§ 24-428(a) and -434 (1989), provides:
(a) Every person who is convicted of a violation of a District of Columbia (“District”) criminal law by a court in the District of Columbia, imprisoned in a District correctional facility, and whose conduct is in conformity with all applicable institutional rules is entitled to institutional good time credits in accordance with the provisions of this section.... [Emphasis added.]
* * * * * *
*581Institutional and educational good time credits shall not be applied to the minimum terms of persons sentenced under the District of Columbia Mandatory-Minimum Sentences Initiative of 1981, effective March 9, 1982 (D.C.Law 4-166, §§ 22-3202, 33-501 and 33-541).
The first degree murder statute adopted many years earlier, D.C.Code §§ 22-2404(a) and (b) (1989), provides:
(a) The punishment of murder in the first degree shall be life imprisonment.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person convicted of first-degree murder and upon whom a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed shall be eligible for parole only after the expiration of 20 years from the date he commences to serve his sentence. [Emphasis added.]
These two statutes, each containing a provision limiting early release from prison, arguably conflict with each other as applied to first degree murder. Absent § 22-2404(b), the 1986 Act, §§ 24-428(a) and -434, would make good time credits available to “[e]very person” convicted of first degree murder; and, absent the 1986 Act, no good time credits could possibly reduce the 20 year minimum sentence for first degree murder. Accordingly, because either statute would cause a different result without the other, we must construe them together. See Holt v. United States, 565 A.2d 970, 975 (D.C.1989) (statutory provisions having same purpose or subject matter are in pari materia and should be construed together). More specifically, according to the Supreme Court:
The correct rule of interpretation is, that if divers statutes relate to the same thing, they ought all to be taken into consideration in construing any one of them, and it is an established rule of law, that all acts in pari materia are to be taken together, as if they were one law.
United States v. Freeman, 44 U.S. 556, (3 How.), 564-65, 11 L.Ed. 724 (1845) (citations omitted).
Superficially, we could apply Freeman— viewing the statutes as “one law,” id. at 564 — and quickly conclude that “[e]very person” convicted of a District of Columbia criminal law “is entitled to institutional good time credits,” provided that [1] such credits “shall not be applied to the minimum terms of persons sentenced under the District of Columbia Mandatory-Minimum Sentences Initiative of 1981,” and that [2] “[notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person convicted of first degree murder” and sentenced to life imprisonment “shall be eligible for parole only after the expiration of 20 years from the date he commences to serve his sentence.” The very structure of the statute fashioned by tacking together the two provisions at issue reflects a general rule subject to two compatible exceptions.
Given, however, that these statutes were enacted many years apart and that the Cunningham court has construed the “Notwithstanding” clause of § 22-2404(b) as applying only to “law existing at the time § 22-2404(b) was passed,” 18 we have to inquire further into how these statutes should be deemed to relate, absent illuminating legislative history. See ante at 575-576.
First, I find no basis for the Cunningham court’s conclusion that the “Notwithstanding” language of § 22-2404(b) was intended to apply only to laws in effect at the time of its enactment. It is true that § 22-2404(b) was adopted to make clear that someone convicted of first-degree murder, in contrast with second-degree murder, could not have a life imprisonment term reduced below 20 years by reference to the Indeterminate Sentences Act, D.C.Code § 24-203(a) (1989) (where maximum sentence is life imprisonment, “a minimum sentence shall be imposed which shall not exceed 15 years of imprisonment”). See H.R.Rep. No. 677, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1961). But this is not to say that Congress had no intention whatsoever of protecting the 20-year minimum under § 22-2404(b) against later, more generally stated legislation that arguably could affect the penalty for first degree murder. Literally, *582the “Notwithstanding” clause of § 22-2404(b) applies to subsequent, as well as to existing, laws — although with an uncertain reach.
Recently, in Illinois Nat’l Guard v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 272 U.S.App. D.C. 187, 854 F.2d 1396 (1988), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt with a similar issue. The court considered whether the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968 (current version at 32 U.S.C. §§ 709, 715 (1988)), exempted the National Guards of Illinois, Wyoming, and California from the later-enacted bargaining requirements of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act of 1982 (current version at 5 U.S.C. §§ 6101, 6130(a) (1988)). The Technician Act provision at issue committed “establishment of work schedules to the unfettered discretion of the Secretary” of the Army, whereas the later Schedules Act required “bargaining over work schedules.” 272 U.S.App.D.C. at 193, 854 F.2d at 1402. The Technician Act, however, explicitly provided that its terms were to apply “[Notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Id. at 192, 854 F.2d at 1401. Quoting with approval from a Third Circuit case construing a similar provision of the Technician Act with reference to an arguably preemptive provision of the later Labor-Management Relations Chapter of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (current version at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135 (1988)), the court wrote:
Looking first to the statutory language, we immediately confront the preface to section 709(e) of the Technician Act, which explicitly provides that its terms apply “Notwithstanding any other provision of law ...” [emphasis added]. A clearer statement is difficult to imagine: section 709(e) must be read to override any conflicting provision of law in existence at the time that the Technician Act was enacted. Application of this statement is less certain, however, with respect to a statute such as the Labor-Management Act, adopted after the Technician Act. The drafters of section 709(e) can hardly be said to have had the Labor-Management Act specifically within their contemplation. Even so, the preemptive language is powerful evidence that Congress did not intend any other, more general, legislation, whenever enacted, to qualify the authority of the state adjutants general as set out in the Technician Act. The language does not preclude a subsequent change of heart on the part of Congress, but it does suggest that any qualification of the terms of section 709(e) would be accepted by Congress only after some consideration of the factors requiring or permitting such a change.
Id. at 194, 854 F.2d at 1403 (quoting New Jersey Air Nat’l Guard v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 677 F.2d 276, 283 (3d Cir.) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 988, 103 S.Ct. 343, 74 L.Ed.2d 384 (1982)).19
Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit has interpreted a “Notwithstanding” clause identical to the one at issue here not merely to protect a statute against automatic repeal by subsequently enacted legislation covering the same field, but also to mean that a subsequent law, in order to preempt the earlier one, must reflect legislative “consideration of the factors requiring or permitting” the alleged change. Id.
In adopting and applying this analysis, the Circuit Court found no legislative history that indicated Congress had intended the bargaining provisions of the 1982 Schedules Act to trump the “Notwithstanding” clause of the 1968 Technician Act. The court then concluded that the earlier Technician Act provision had to apply because, according to applicable canons of statutory construction, “repeals by implication are not favored” and “a specific statute controls over a general one without regard to priority of enactment.” Id. 272 U.S.App. D.C. at 195, 196, 854 F.2d at 1404, 1405 *583(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
It is unclear how much the court in Illinois National Guard relied on the “powerful evidence” of the “preemptive language” in the “Notwithstanding” clause and how much the court premised its analysis, more generally, on canons of statutory construction absent clarifying language or legislative history. See id. at 194, 854 F.2d at 1403. My sense is that the court relied primarily on interpretive canons with the result made easier by the force of the “Notwithstanding” clause language in the earlier statute. I believe this approach is applicable here. Whether we focus on the subject of good time credits or more narrowly on the subject of mandatory minimum sentences, the later-enacted Good Time Credits Act is more general — more broadly applicable — than the first-degree murder statute. According to the Supreme Court:
It is a basic principle of statutory construction that a statute dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized spectrum. “Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 2483, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 [1974].
Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153, 96 S.Ct. 1989, 1992-93, 48 L.Ed.2d 540 (1976) (footnote omitted); see Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87, 22 S.Ct. 582, 583, 46 L.Ed. 816 (1902) (“It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute”).20
In Radzanower, the Court held that the “narrowly drawn, specific venue provision of the National Bank Act must prevail over the broader, more generally applicable venue provision of the Securities Exchange Act.” Id. at 158, 96 S.Ct. at 1995. The Court elaborated on the Canon that “repeals by implication are not favored,” acknowledging there are
“two well-settled categories of repeals by implication — (1) where provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one; and (2) if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of the earlier act. But, in either case, the intention of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest_” Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497, 503, 56 S.Ct. 349, 352, 80 L.Ed. 351 [1936].
Id. 426 U.S. at 154, 96 S.Ct. at 1993. The Court then noted:
The statutory provisions at issue here cannot be said to be in “irreconcilable conflict” in the sense that there is a positive repugnancy between them or that they cannot mutually coexist. It is not enough to show that the two statutes produce differing results when applied to the same factual situation, for that no more than states the problem. Rather, “when two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the court ... to regard each as effective.” Morton v. Mancan, [417 U.S.] at 551, 94 S.Ct. at 2483.
Id. 426 U.S. at 155, 96 S.Ct. at 1993. The Court concluded that nothing in the legislative history of the Securities Exchange Act supported “the view that Congress in enacting it gave the slightest consideration to the pro tanto repeal of § 94 [of the National Bank Act], let alone to indicate ‘that Congress consciously abandoned its [prior] policy,’ or that its intent to repeal § 94 pro tanto was ‘ “clear and manifest.” ’ ” Id. at 158, 96 S.Ct. at 1995 (citations omitted).
This analysis in Radzanower applies a fortiori in cases such as Illinois National Guard and the instant one where a “Notwithstanding” clause warns against easy *584repeal by subsequent, general legislation. As indicated earlier, both the mandatory mínimums in the first-degree murder statute, D.C.Code § 22-2404(b), and in the Good Time Credits Act, id. § 24-434, can mutually coexist as exceptions to the “Every person” language of the latter Act, id. § 24-428(a); there is no “irreconcilable conflict.” Radzanower, 426 U.S. at 155, 96 S.Ct. at 1992-93. There is “no clear intention,” express or otherwise, that the Good Time Credits Act supersede the first-degree murder statute. Id. at 153, 96 S.Ct. at 1992-93. Thus, this court has a duty “to regard each as effective.” Id. at 155, 96 S.Ct. at 1993 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In short, Radzanower and Illinois National Guard dictate the result here; I see no reason even to get into, let alone rely on, the 1989 Council declaration of the 1986 Council’s intent. Accordingly, for reasons that differ from Judge SCHWELB’S analysis, I, too, would affirm.

. See, e.g., Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 211, 105 S.Ct. 1138, 1152-53, 84 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985) (1984 legislation intended to clarify current law leaves no doubt as to prospective interpretation of statute but "carries in addition considerable retrospective weight’’); Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U.S. 572, 596, 100 S.Ct. 800, 813-14, 63 L.Ed.2d 36 (1980) (while "views of subsequent Congresses cannot override the unmistakable intent of the enacting one, such views are entitled to significant weight, and particularly so when the precise intent of the enacting Congress is obscure”) (citations omitted); NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 275, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1762, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974) ("subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute is entitled to significant weight”); F.H.A. v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84, 90, 79 S.Ct. 141, 145-46, 3 L.Ed.2d 132 (1958) (subsequent legislation which declares intent of earlier law is not conclusive in determining what previous Congress meant but “is entitled to weight when it comes to the problem of construction’’); Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States, 316 U.S. 317, 329-30, 62 S.Ct. 1095, 1100-01, 86 L.Ed. 1501 (1942) (statement in 1892 by Committee which reported "general Allotment Act of 1887, made within five years of its passage, is virtually conclusive as to the significance of that Act”); United States v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477, 480, 43 S.Ct. 197, 199, 67 L.Ed. 358 (1923) ("statute purporting to declare the intent of an earlier one might be of great weight in assisting a Court when in doubt, although not entitled to control judicial action”).

. See Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed, 3 Vand. L.Rev. 395, 401-405 (1950).

. See, e.g., United States v. Mansanto, 491 U.S. 600, 610, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 2664, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989) ("postenactment views form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent’ behind a statute”) (citing Price); Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 839, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2190, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (opinion of “later Congress as to the meaning of a law enacted 10 years earlier does not control the issue”); Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Ass’n v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 165 n. 27, 103 S.Ct. 1011, 1021 n. 27, 74 L.Ed.2d 882 (1983) (views of subsequent Congress form “hazardous basis" for inferring intent of an earlier one) (citing Price); United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann, 434 U.S. 192, 200 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 444, 449 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 402 (1977) ("Legislative observations 10 years after passage of the Act are in no sense part of the legislative history”); Bridge-stone/Firestone, Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 282 U.S.App.D.C. 89, 94 n. 5, 892 F.2d 105, 110 n. 5 (1990) ("[T]he pronouncements of a subsequent Congress, here 13 years after the passage of ERISA, are notoriously *580unreliable indicators of the intent of Congress at the time of passage, and we give very little weight to such revisionist legislative history"); International Union, U.A.W. v. Brock, 259 U.S.App.D.C. 457, 463, 816 F.2d 761, 767 (1987) ("prodigious body of law establishes that 'the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one’ ”) (citing Price ).

. Cunningham v. Williams, 711 F.Supp. 644 (D.D.C.1989).

. See Cunningham, supra note 4, 711 F.Supp. at 646.

. Cunningham states that "[ajccepting the position urged by intervenor" — that the "Notwithstanding" clause could prevail as against subsequent legislation — "would mean that the Council could never modify former law.” 711 F.Supp. at 646. Illinois National Guard makes clear that this statement is incorrect.

. I am not aware of a counter-canon of statutory construction that would affect our applying Radzanower and Rodgers here,