Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1992

Abstract

This article analyzes Justice David Souter’s early approach to statutory interpretation, drawing insights from his opinions shortly after joining the U.S. Supreme Court. William S. Jordan III situates Souter within the broader interpretive landscape, comparing his methodology to those of his contemporaries, particularly textualists and intentionalists. Jordan examines Souter’s nuanced engagement with legislative history, statutory text, and purpose, highlighting his tendency to seek a balanced and pragmatic interpretive stance. Rather than adhering rigidly to any single school of thought, Souter's opinions reflect a moderate, context-sensitive methodology grounded in respect for both legislative intent and judicial restraint. The article argues that Souter’s interpretive style contributes to a richer, more flexible jurisprudence during a time of increasing polarization over interpretive theory.

Publication Title

University of Toledo Law Review

Volume

23

First Page

491

Share

COinS