Associate Adam Yoffie’s 2011 article in the Seton Hall Legislative Journal argues that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s reputation for a purpose-driven constitutional jurisprudence does not carry over to matters of statutory interpretation, in which the court employs a quasi-textualist approach. Comparing the use of legislative history during the final six years of the Poritz Court to the first three years of the Rabner Court, Adam finds that even though the justices do not adhere to Scalia-like textualism – especially since legislative ‘intent’ continues to drive the Court’s statutory decisions, which are filled with references to legislative history – they rely on the text as the focal point of their rulings.

The citation is as follows: From Poritz to Rabner: The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Statutory Jurisprudence, 2000-2009, 35 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 302 (2011).

Read the full article.