Footnote 3 in Justice Sotomayor’s unanimous opinion in Clark v. Rameker clearly cites legislative history:
3 As the House Judiciary Committee explained in the process of enact ing §522, “[t]he historical purpose” of bankruptcy exemptions has been to provide a debtor “with the basic necessities of life” so that she “will not be left destitute and a public charge.” H. R. Rep. No. 95–595, p. 126 (1977).
Usually, Scalia refuses to join a footnote that cites legislative history, but he seems to have joined the entire opinion. What gives?! Is he going soft.
Update: Ed Whelan offers a possible explanation.
@JoshMBlackman Possible explanation: Legislative history in footnote not being used to explain intended meaning of statutory text.
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 12, 2014
@JoshMBlackman “A Matter of Interpretation”: Legis history “should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statute’s meaning.”
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) June 12, 2014