Professional Reading: Should Some Forms of Legislative History Be Excluded During Judicial Review?

In The Use of Committee Reports in Statutory Interpretation: A Suggested Framework for the Federal Judiciary, 60 Ark. L. Rev. 687-706 (2007) [Westlaw], Michael L. Culotta argues that (1) judges should look to legislative history when interpreting ambiguous statutory construction, and (2) only one form of legislative history -- committee reports and conference reports -- is reliable.

"Unlike individual statements of legislators and other types of legislative history, committee reports and conference reports are the products of bipartisan negotiation and more accurately illuminate the intent of the enacting legislature."

I'm not persuaded by the author's argument but several jurisdictions do limit statutory interpretation to select forms of legislative history which thereby eliminate other forms from consideration. I recommend reading this brief article. [JH]