Statutory Reversal in the United States

Legislative action to overturn a judicial ruling. Statutory reversal can occur most simply when the decision of a court rests on an interpretation of legislation as to meaning or intent. Congress often cannot simply reverse a decision where a court finds a constitutional defect by re-enacting a “clarified” version of the statute. In most cases, however, appellate courts are engaged in statutory construction as opposed to judicial review. Thus, reversal through the normal legislative process is possible. In situations where Congress disagrees with a judicial interpretation of a statute, it may simply enact a new statute that clarifies its objectives and reverses those sections that produced a court interpretation that is incompatible. Statutory reversal is a means by which the legislative branch cannot only “correct” decisions of courts, but also limit the impact of judicial authority more generally. Frequent statutory reversal can be regarded as a method of court “curbing.” See also Court “Curbing” (Judicial Effects and Policies) Judicial Review (Judicial Effects and Policies) Statutory Construction (Judicial Effects and Policies).

Analysis and Relevance

The legislative branch can generally reverse court decisions based on statutory construction. If courts and legislatures disagree as to what a law is intended to do, statutory reversal allows the legislature to essentially have the last word and determine the proper course for its own enactments. Disagreements of this kind are not frequent, but they are more common than those situations where enactments are nullified in their entirety through the process of judicial review. Reflected in this legislative-judicial tension is the dynamic of checks and balances. A recent example of statutory reversal involved the case of Grove City College v. Bell (465 U.S. 555: 1984). This case grew out of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which covers gender discrimination in educational programs. The question focused on sanctions: whether federal funds were to be withheld only from the specific program where violations occurred or from the institution entirely. The Supreme Court ruled that only the offending program could be sanctioned. The violations were confined to stu-dent financial aid; thus, only federal funds going through that program could be withheld. Any other federal support going to other programs at Grove City were to continue. Congress disagreed with this interpretation of Title IX and eventually enacted legislation that called for the institution-wide sanctions. The effect of the new legislation was to reverse the Court’s Grove City decision.

Notes and References

1. Definition of Statutory Reversal from the American Law Dictionary, 1991, California