Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶146
There is no doubt that “‘[w]hen Congress amends legislation,’” this Court ordinarily “‘presume[s] it intends the change to have real and substantial effect.’” Van Buren v. United States, 593 U. S. 374, 393 (2021). This presumption may be overcome, however, if there is evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 777–778 (2023) (declining to attribute broad change in meaning to statutory amendment because statutory history suggested amendment was an effort to “‘streamlin[e]’” the statute); BNSF R. Co. v. Loos, 586 U. S. 310, 320–321 (2019) (rejecting presumption because legislative history and federal regulations interpreting an amendment showed Congress had no intent to change the statute’s substantive meaning); Wilson, 503 U. S., at 336–337 (rejecting presumption because statute could not otherwise function sensibly). On the other side of the ledger,…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.