FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶91

For those who remain unconvinced, I posit that their doubts likely stem from a categorical unwillingness to accept the help of legislative history when interpreting statutes. That is certainly the case for the majority. See ante, at 11, 14. But if, as the majority says, it is “mission impossible” to “divin[e] how Congress would have wanted courts to resolve the question presented in this case” with the help of legislative history, ante, at 11, a juridical cast of thousands—including many of our illustrious predecessors— has accepted the challenge. Legislative history is a traditional tool courts consult when attempting to ascertain Congress’s intent regarding ambiguous statutory text (such as, as relevant here, disputes concerning implied private rights of action). This is a worthy and necessary effort because it prevents the preferences of judges from supplanting the will of the people.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.