Changes

:[A] powerful line of Supreme Court authority suggests that legislative history should rarely be used in statutory interpretation, because only the text of the law has been passed by Congress, not the often-contrived history. ''See, e.g.'', ''Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs. Inc.'', 545 U.S. 546, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2626 (2005).

:[A] powerful line of Supreme Court authority suggests that legislative history should rarely be used in statutory interpretation, because only the text of the law has been passed by Congress, not the often-contrived history. ''See, e.g.'', ''Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs. Inc.'', 545 U.S. 546, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2626 (2005).

In the context of administrative law, Chief Judge Jones likewise downplayed the use of legislative history:<ref>Texas v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19688, *38 - *39 (5th Cir.  

In the context of [[administrative law]], Chief Judge Jones likewise downplayed the use of legislative history:<ref>Texas v. United States, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19688, *38 - *39 (5th Cir.  

August 17, 2007).</ref>

August 17, 2007).</ref>