WASHINGTON, D.C. — Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate concurrence in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. "The Court can, and should, consult a statute's legislative history to determine what Congress actually intended the statute to do," Jackson wrote.

Jackson stated the Court's "fundamental task" in interpreting federal statutes is to give effect to Congress's intent. "The Court faithfully discharges this duty when it considers all reliable evidence of Congress's intent—including statutory and legislative history," she wrote. Jackson criticized approaches that ignore context and enactment history. "Too often, this Court closes its eyes to context, enactment history, and the legislature's goals when assessing statutory meaning. I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," Jackson wrote. "If a statute's text does not provide a clear answer to a question, it is not our role to keep twisting and turning those words until self-confirmatory observations solidify our 'first blush' assumptions."

Jackson also wrote a concurrence in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parrish citing Robert Katzmann, who served as Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. During the term prior to the 2025-2026 term, Jackson issued a dissent in Stanley v. City of Sanford.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer have articulated positions supporting the use of legislative history. Sotomayor wrote a dissent in Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel. Wilson in 2010, which Breyer joined. In that dissent, Sotomayor stated, "The statutory context and legislative history are … less 'opaque,' … than the majority today acknowledges." Sotomayor also wrote a dissent in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a case concerning the preemptive effect of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Breyer concurred in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, stating, "I would look to other sources, including legislative history [and] statutory purpose." In 2017, Sotomayor wrote a concurrence in Digital Reality Trust v. Somers, a unanimous opinion in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. Three other justices wrote a separate concurrence in Digital Reality Trust v. Somers rejecting the use of legislative history. In her concurrence, Sotomayor stated, "I disagree with the suggestion in [her] colleague's concurrence that a Senate Report is not an appropriate source for this Court to consider when interpreting a statute."

Legislative history refers to materials produced by Congress during the legislative process, including committee and conference reports. Justice Antonin Scalia, who advocated for textualism beginning in the 1990s, characterized legislative history as a "legal fiction." Textualism is an interpretive methodology focused on statutory language and generally involves a reluctance to consult legislative history. Justice Elena Kagan stated in 2015 that "we are all textualists now." Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer advocated for the consideration of legislative history and congressional intent.