For All Intents and Purposes: What Collective Intention Tells Us about Congress and Statutory Interpretation

While courts in the United States frequently invoke legislative intent and legislative purpose when interpreting statutes, legal scholars have long questioned whether a multimember body like Congress can have purposes or intentions. Drawing on the philosophical literature on collective intention, this Comment argues that Congress, when enacting statutes, is the type of social organization that has intentions. The same literature on collective intention, however, counsels caution in expanding the list of mental states one should ascribe to Congress. This Comment begins by defining the contours of legislative intent and legislative purpose and then explore why relying on legislative purpose is appealing to courts. Next, the Comment describes a variety of theories of collective intention and looks in depth at the work of Raimo Tuomela. Third, the Comment analyzes Congress’s characteristics as a social entity and applies Tuomela’s account of collective intention to Congress, concluding that this account demonstrates that Congress, at least under certain circumstances, can have intentions. The argument runs as follows: to be a member of Congress an individual must agree that when legislation is being written, amended, and voted on certain members of Congress will become “operative” members. Once a bill is passed, all members of Congress