'Necessary AND Proper' and 'Cruel AND Unusual': Hendiadys in the Constitution
Constitutional doctrine is often shaped by the details of the constitutional text. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supreme Court first considers whether a law is “necessary” and then whether it is “proper.” Some justices have urged the same approach for the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause: first ask if the punishment is “cruel,” then if it is “unusual.” That each clause has two requirements seems obvious, and it is has been the assumption underlying vast amounts of scholarship. That assumption is incorrect.This Article argues that “necessary and proper” and “cruel and unusual” are best read as instances of hendiadys. Hendiadys is a figure of speech in which two terms, separated by a conjunction, work together as a single complex expression. It is found in many languages, including English: e.g., “rise and shine,” “nice and fat,” “cakes and ale,” “open and notorious.” When “cruel and unusual” is read as a hendiadys, the clause does not prohibit punishments that merely happen to be both cruel and unusual. Rather, it prohibits punishments that are unusually cruel, i.e., innovative in their cruelty. If “necessary and proper” is read as a hendiadys, then the terms are not separate requirements for congressional action. The word “necessary” requires a close relationship between a statute and the constitutional power it is carrying into execution, while “proper” instructs us not to interpret “necessary” in its strictest sense. “Proper” also reminds us that the incidental power Congress is exercising must belong to an enumerated power.To read each of these constitutional phrases as a hendiadys, though seemingly novel, actually aligns closely with the early interpretations, including the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland. The readings offered here solve a number of puzzles, and they better capture the subtlety of these clauses.
The Mischief Rule
The mischief rule tells an interpreter to read a statute in light of the “mischief” or “evil”—the problem that prompted the statute. The mischief rule has been associated with Blackstone’s appeal to a statute’s “reason and spirit” and with Hart-and-Sacks-style purposivism; it was rejected by Justice Scalia. But the rule is widely misunderstood, both by those inclined to love it and those inclined to hate it. This Article reconsiders the mischief rule. It shows that the rule has two enduringly useful functions: guiding an interpreter to a “stopping point” for statutory language that can be given a broader or narrower scope, and helping the interpreter prevent “clever evasions” of the statute. The mischief rule raises fundamental questions about the relationship of text and context, about the construction of ambiguity, and about legal interpretation when we are no longer in “the age of statutes.” In many of our present interpretive conflicts, the mischief rule offers useful guidance, for textualists and purposivists alike.
What Kind of Immunity? Federal Officers, State Criminal Law, and the Supremacy Clause
When, if ever, may a State prosecute a federal officer for violating state criminal law while discharging his federal duties? Over the past decade, developments in the doctrines associated with federalism have redefined the constitutional status of federal attempts to regulate the States. The question posed here implicates the opposite, rarely examined, side of federalism's coin: the extent to which the Constitution constrains state attempts to regulate the federal government and its agents. It has been clear for over a century that federal officers enjoy some degree of immunity in this area, but the precise scope of, and basis for, that immunity - known as Supremacy Clause immunity - remain unclear. This Article seeks clarity. Drawing on recent litigation arising out of the 1992 standoff between federal law enforcement officers and armed separatists at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, it argues that federal officers acting within the scope of their employment should be immune from state prosecution for any action taken that they reasonably believe is necessary and proper to the performance of their federal functions. State criminal law, in other words, must not be applied so as to chill federal officers in the discharge of their federal duties as they reasonably understand them. In articulating this standard, the Article draws on related doctrines like qualified immunity in the civil context and on principles of preemption as derived from foundational cases like McCulloch v. Maryland. In addition to supporting the Article's view of the proper scope of Supremacy Clause immunity as a default matter, these analogies confirm that the degree of immunity in this area is largely subject to congressional control. Congress, the Article suggests, could completely immunize federal officers from state prosecution for conduct taken in the discharge of their duties, or it could expose federal officers to the full force of state law. Either congressional choice would change what a reasonable federal officer would think about the scope of his federal authority vis-a-vis contrary state law, thus recalibrating the scope of his immunity. At bottom, Supremacy Clause immunity is concerned with resolving conflicts between state and federal law. Where the application of state law threatens the effectuation of federal law or policy, the Supremacy Clause provides a federal trump. This attention to actual state-federal conflict, the Article suggests, should inform courts' approaches to a whole range of issues of overlapping federal and state power. Rather than making categorical judgments about the division of sovereign power, courts should instead be attentive to the extent of actual conflict between state law and federal functions.