{
  "id": "R44419",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44419",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 450995,
      "date": "2016-03-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:51:25.989492",
      "title": "Justice Antonin Scalia: His Jurisprudence and His Impact on the Court",
      "summary": "On February 13, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly at the age of 79, vacating a seat on the Supreme Court which he had held for nearly 30 years. Justice Scalia\u2019s lengthy tenure on the Court, coupled with his strongly held views on how constitutional and statutory texts are to be interpreted, led him to have significant influence on the development of the jurisprudence of various areas of law. He was also an active speaker and author outside the Court, having, among other things, recently coauthored a book which sought to articulate interpretative canons that would, in its authors\u2019 view, \u201ccurb\u2014even reverse\u2014the tendency of judges to imbue authoritative texts with their own policy preferences\u201d and \u201cprovide greater certainty in the law, and hence greater predictability and greater respect for the rule of law.\u201d Like his approaches to many legal issues in his opinions on the Court, Justice Scalia\u2019s approach to statutory interpretation in this book has prompted debate both over its desirability, as a normative matter, and over the consistency with which Justice Scalia applied that approach. \nThis report discusses Justice Scalia\u2019s jurisprudence on key areas of law, as well as how that jurisprudence could be seen to have influenced the Court\u2019s approach to these subject matters. It begins with his views on two cross-cutting issues\u2014the role of the judiciary and statutory interpretation\u2014which highlight his well-known views about originalism, textualism, the importance of bright-line rules for judges to apply, and the proper role of the courts within the system of government established by the U.S. Constitution. It then addresses Justice Scalia\u2019s jurisprudence on fourteen separate areas of law, which are arranged in alphabetical order from \u201cadministrative law\u201d to \u201ctakings,\u201d and were specifically selected as key areas of law where Justice Scalia\u2019s absence from the Court could result in a change in its jurisprudence. The report concludes with an Appendix that lists the Supreme Court cases from the October 2010 term through the October 2015 term in which Justice Scalia was part of a bare five-member majority, indicating the legal issues where Justice Scalia\u2019s absence from the Court could result in a shift in the Court\u2019s jurisprudence. A separate report is being prepared to address the opinions of Merrick Garland, currently the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the President\u2019s nominee to fill the seat vacated by Justice Scalia. The two reports, taken together, may assist Members of Congress and their staff in assessing the impact that replacement of Justice Scalia might have upon the High Court\u2019s rulings. \nOther CRS reports address the procedural issues that the vacating of Justice Scalia\u2019s seat poses for the Court, as well as the processes for nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices. See CRS Report R44400, The Death of Justice Scalia: Procedural Issues Arising on an Eight-Member Supreme Court, by Andrew Nolan; CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President\u2019s Selection of a Nominee, by Barry J. McMillion; CRS Report R44236, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, by Barry J. McMillion; and CRS Report R44234, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote, by Barry J. McMillion.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44419",
          "sha1": "784770f7f189ae08befe90b4cd2eae96d51b401d",
          "filename": "files/20160318_R44419_784770f7f189ae08befe90b4cd2eae96d51b401d.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44419",
          "sha1": "34c8ba65a055f85e008238146b97eb73be14874e",
          "filename": "files/20160318_R44419_34c8ba65a055f85e008238146b97eb73be14874e.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Health Policy"
  ]
}