Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump · ¶186

Strong-form substantive canons—canons instructing a judge to adopt “an inferior-but-tenable reading”—veer beyond interpretation and into policymaking. Nebraska, 600 U. S., at 509 (Barrett, J., concurring). And while the policy may be desirable or even constitutionally inspired, judges should hesitate to impose disciplining rules on Congress. See ibid., n. 2 (explaining that such “prophylactic constraints” are “in tension with the Constitution's structure”). As Justice Scalia lamented, “whether these dice-loading rules are bad or good, there is also the question of where the courts get the authority to impose them. Can we really just decree that we will interpret the laws that Congress passes to mean less or more than what they fairly say?” Scalia 28–29.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.