Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)

Citation: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Parent Document: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1990-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8990172/johnson-v-united-states-departm... ↗

Full Text

1,317 chars

The Reform Act of 1989 removes any doubt we may still harbor as to whether Congress intended the Preservation Act to cover mortgage insurance termination and is a reliable indication of what Congress intended when it originally enacted the Preservation Act in 1987. Because the Reform Act is a subsequent legislative enactment, it is unlike the less formal types of subsequent legislative history which the Supreme Court has cautioned ‘iprovide an extremely hazardous basis for inferring the meaning of a Congressional enactment.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, 118 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2061 n. 13, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980). In Consumer Product, the Supreme Court refused to give substantial weight to remarks made at a subsequent hearing and in a subsequent committee report about what Congress intended by an earlier enactment. Id. at 118, 100 S.Ct. at 2061. The Court specifically distinguished subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute, acknowledging that in the case of clarifying legislation “Congress has proceeded formally through the legislative process” the therefore the subsequent legislation may be entitled to great weight. Id. at 118 n. 13, 100 S.Ct. at 2061 n. 13 (citing Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. at 380-81, 89 S.Ct. at 1801-02).

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text