Reversals of Court Decisions By Congress When the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of a provision in the Constitution, its decision can be overturned directly only by a constitutional amendment. But decisions interpreting a federal statute can be overturned simply through the enactment of a new statute, so that Congress has a relatively easy means to reject the Court's reading of statutes.
This congressional power is important, because the Court devotes a large share of its efforts to statutory interpretation. In the 1988 term, according to data presented in
Harvard Law Review (November 1989, p. 401), in only 44 percent of the Court's decisions was the major issue one of constitutional law. The Court's work in such fields as
labor law,
antitrust, and taxation is concentrated on the interpretation of federal statutes. Thus Congress stands in a stronger position vis‐à‐vis the Court in these fields than in fields where constitutional law plays a more prominent role, such as civil liberties.
A substantial majority of the Court's statutory decisions attract little attention in Congress. But bills are introduced to overturn or modify a significant number of them. The impetus for such bills can come from several sources. Individual members may be unhappy with the Court's reading of a statute in a policy area that is of special concern to them. More often, interest groups will press for legislation to overcome decisions that run counter to their interests. In fields in which strong groups exist on both sides, such as labor law, Court decisions that favor one side significantly often attract reversal efforts by groups that represent the opposing interest.
Occasionally, the Court itself invites Congress to overturn a decision by suggesting in an opinion that its reading of a statute requires it to reach an unfortunate result. In
Westfall v. Irwin (1988), for instance, the Court limited the immunity of federal employees from lawsuits. Justice Thurgood
Marshall's opinion for a unanimous Court strongly suggested that Congress rewrite the law, and within a year a new statute was adopted to supersede the
Westfall decision.
Most bills that are introduced to overturn statutory decisions fail to become law. Indeed, in some instances opponents of a Court decision introduce bills to overturn the decision several times without achieving success. This has been the case thus far with legislation directed against
Feres v. United States (1950), which limited the right of military personnel to sue the federal government for medical malpractice. The fact that only a small proportion of Court‐reversing legislation is adopted does not result from a consensus that it is inappropriate to reject Supreme Court rulings on statutes. Unlike amending the Constitution, rewriting of a statute often is viewed as a routine matter rather than a confrontation between two branches. Rather, these failures reflect primarily the difficulties involved in enacting legislation.
These difficulties notwithstanding, it is not uncommon for Congress to adopt legislation that reverses a statutory decision altogether or in part. During the 1980s, reversal legislation was adopted on such issues as the allocation of military retirement pay in divorce settlements, the damages that foreign governments can collect in
antitrust cases, alteration of labor contracts by companies that have filed bankruptcy cases, and overtime pay for employees of state and local governments.
The routine character of most such actions is reflected in the lack of attention given to them. This is particularly true of obscure fields of law; in 1984, a successful bill to overturn a 1972 decision concerning rules for
patent infringement went almost unnoticed outside of Congress and the patent community. A striking exception to the general pattern was the campaign to overturn
Grove City College v. Bell (1984), a decision that had applied a narrow interpretation to laws prohibiting discrimination by business and other institutions that receive funds from the federal government; the Court held that only the part of the institution that discriminated was prohibited from receiving federal money. Acting at the behest of civil rights groups, Congress in 1988 overrode a veto by President Ronald
Reagan and overturned the decision after a long and well‐publicized battle.
This battle underlines both the significance of the Supreme Court's statutory decisions and the importance of the congressional power to overturn them. Through use of that power, Congress helps to maintain for itself a continuing role in the development of the law on statutory matters.
See also
Reversals of Court Decisions by Amendment.
Lawrence Baum
