Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP attorneys Thane Rehn and Benjamin J. Horwich wrote a “Supreme Court Watch” column for the San Francisco Attorney magazine about two disparate approaches to statutory interpretation in the United States Supreme Court.
The article, which appears in the Winter 2014 edition, analyzes the divide between textualism, which emphasizes a focus on the words of a statute, and purposivism, which argues that a statute represents the legislature’s best attempt to address a particular problem.
The column describes the application of the two legal approaches in recent cases before the Supreme Court, and how certain justices interpreted the corresponding statutes. It also emphasized the need for both types of arguments in the Supreme Court. Read the entire article here.
Based in Munger Tolles’ San Francisco office, Mr. Rehn focuses his practice on complex civil litigation including antitrust, patent, securities and bankruptcy litigation. Mr. Rehn clerked previously for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Also based in San Francisco, Mr. Horwich focuses on complex litigation and appeals. He joined Munger Tolles in 2014 after serving for more than five years as Assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice. He clerked previously for Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito and Sandra Day O’Connor.