United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc.
508 U.S. 439 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a statute, courts must engage in a holistic endeavor, considering the statute's full text, structure, and subject matter. Punctuation, such as misplaced quotation marks, may be disregarded or corrected if it creates a result contrary to the clear meaning derived from the statute's broader context, as this may indicate a scrivener's error.
Facts:
- In 1916, Congress enacted a law, later known as section 92, authorizing national banks in any place with a population not exceeding 5,000 to act as insurance agents.
- In 1918, Congress passed the War Finance Corporation Act, which amended a separate banking law, Revised Statute § 5202, by adding a new exception to a bank's indebtedness limit.
- Beginning with the 1952 edition, the official United States Code omitted section 92, including a codifier's note stating it had been repealed by the 1918 Act.
- Despite its omission from the Code, federal regulators, including the Comptroller of the Currency, and Congress itself continued to operate as if section 92 remained valid law, with Congress even amending it in 1982.
- United States National Bank of Oregon (Bank), a national bank, operated a branch in Banks, Oregon, a town with a population of 489.
- In 1986, the Comptroller of the Currency, relying on his authority under section 92, approved the Bank's request to sell insurance through its Banks, Oregon branch to customers nationwide.
- Various trade organizations representing insurance agents (Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc.) opposed the Comptroller's approval, leading to a legal challenge.
Procedural Posture:
- The Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. sued the Comptroller of the Currency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Comptroller's ruling under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- United States National Bank of Oregon intervened as a defendant.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the Comptroller and the Bank, upholding the ruling.
- The insurance agents (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, raising the issue on its own initiative, found that section 92 had been repealed in 1918.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the insurance agents.
- The Bank and the Comptroller (petitioners) separately filed petitions for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which were granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the War Finance Corporation Act of 1918, which amended Revised Statute § 5202, implicitly repeal the 1916 statutory provision (section 92) that authorized national banks in small communities to sell insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. The War Finance Corporation Act of 1918 did not repeal section 92 because a holistic analysis of the 1916 Act demonstrates that section 92 was placed within the Federal Reserve Act, not Revised Statute § 5202. The court reasoned that while the punctuation (quotation marks) of the 1916 Act suggested section 92 was incorporated into Rev. Stat. § 5202, this created an anomaly. A 'holistic endeavor' of statutory construction, looking beyond mere punctuation to the statute's title, structure, and subject matter, provides overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The 1916 Act's title only mentions amending the Federal Reserve Act, and the paragraphs immediately surrounding section 92 deal with powers of the Federal Reserve, fitting logically within the Federal Reserve Act but not within Rev. Stat. § 5202's narrow scope on bank indebtedness. The Court concluded the punctuation was a 'simple scrivener's error' and that the 1916 Act actually placed section 92 into § 13 of the Federal Reserve Act. Since the 1918 Act only amended Rev. Stat. § 5202 and did not touch the Federal Reserve Act, section 92 was never repealed and remains valid law.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant reaffirmation of the 'holistic' approach to statutory interpretation, prioritizing substance over form. It establishes that courts are not bound by the literal implications of punctuation when overwhelming contextual evidence—such as statutory structure, title, and subject matter—reveals a clear legislative intent to the contrary. The case empowers courts to correct apparent 'scrivener's errors' to prevent an absurd or unintended legal outcome. This ruling has a lasting impact on statutory construction, cautioning against overly rigid textualism and validating a more pragmatic analysis to discern the true meaning of a law.
