DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
653 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
10
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
653 KB
Summary
This document is page 55 (PDF page 70) of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The text presents a legal argument regarding the 'Landgraf test' and statutory interpretation, specifically arguing that the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) was not intended to apply retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a proviso that would have allowed it to cover conduct predating the enactment. The page relies on various Supreme Court and Circuit Court citations to support the argument that rejected legislative proposals are significant indicators of congressional intent.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin | Litigant |
Party in cited case Martin v. Hadix
|
| Hadix | Litigant |
Party in cited case Martin v. Hadix
|
| Lattab | Litigant |
Party in cited case Lattab v. Ashcroft
|
| Ashcroft | Litigant |
Party in cited case Lattab v. Ashcroft
|
| Napolitano | Litigant |
Party in cited case United States v. Napolitano
|
| Lawson | Litigant |
Party in cited case United States v. Lawson
|
Organizations (10)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Considered and rejected retroactivity clause in 2003
|
|
| House of Representatives |
House version of the bill included a proviso
|
|
| Senate |
Conferenced with House to reject retroactivity
|
|
| Food & Drug Administration |
Party in cited case
|
|
| Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. |
Party in cited case
|
|
| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms |
Party in cited case
|
|
| Fed. Labor Relations Auth. |
Party in cited case
|
|
| Hudson Valley Black Press |
Party in cited case
|
|
| I.R.S. |
Party in cited case
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of document (via Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Court of Appeals cited multiple times
|
|
|
Court of Appeals cited
|
Key Quotes (3)
"The legislative history of 2003’s amendment makes it abundantly clear that Congress considered—and rejected—a retroactivity clause that would have expressly allowed § 3283’s lifetime limitations period to attach to conduct predating its enactment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
Quote #1
"The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
Quote #2
"Courts give great weight to Congress’ consideration and rejection of a legislative proposal in interpreting federal statutes"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,519 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page70 of 113
the Landgraf test.” Enterprise, 391 F.3d at 408 (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 262-
63); see also Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999); Lattab v. Ashcroft,
384 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2004).
63); see also Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999); Lattab v. Ashcroft,
384 F.3d 8, 14 (1st Cir. 2004).
The legislative history of 2003’s amendment makes it abundantly clear that
Congress considered—and rejected—a retroactivity clause that would have
expressly allowed § 3283’s lifetime limitations period to attach to conduct
predating its enactment. The House version of the bill included the following
proviso:
Congress considered—and rejected—a retroactivity clause that would have
expressly allowed § 3283’s lifetime limitations period to attach to conduct
predating its enactment. The House version of the bill included the following
proviso:
The amendments made by this section shall apply to the prosecution
of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment
of this section.
of any offense committed before, on, or after the date of the enactment
of this section.
Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, 108th Cong. § 202 (2003). When the
House and Senate conferenced, however, this retroactivity provision was rejected.
Courts give great weight to Congress’ consideration and rejection of a legislative
proposal in interpreting federal statutes, and such a clear expression of
congressional intent ought to end the Landgraf analysis at step one here. See Food
& Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144
(2000); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,
464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112
(2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985);
United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982).
House and Senate conferenced, however, this retroactivity provision was rejected.
Courts give great weight to Congress’ consideration and rejection of a legislative
proposal in interpreting federal statutes, and such a clear expression of
congressional intent ought to end the Landgraf analysis at step one here. See Food
& Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 144
(2000); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,
464 U.S. 89, 104 (1983); Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106, 112
(2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 1985);
United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 693 (2d Cir. 1982).
55
DOJ-OGR-00021117
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document