AI-powered
podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Is 1604 a Contextual Statutory Interpretation?
I was heartened to hear that more of the justices seemed willing to not to take an a contextual view of this particular provision. Do we see kind of some of the broader factors around the FSIA entering into an equation? Could that be an explanation why certain of the justices are more open to arguments that depart from the easiest kind of Occam's razor textual reading of the statute or at least of 1604? Is this a normal statutory interpretation case or is there something else kind of happening in this context?