This Article asserts that judicial activism occurs when a court goes beyond the plain meaning of the text that is plain and unambiguous, to promulgate its politics. This Article does not make the argument nor infer that this is the sole definition of judicial activism. Rather, this Article is narrowing the scope by enumerating a specific act that falls within the category of judicial activism.
This argument proceeds as follows. Part I provides context of judicial activism. Part II analyzes how various courts have interpreted the statute, and whether the interpretation is consistent with canons of construction. Part III assesses ambiguity in statutes. Part IV examines the legislative history of the statute. Part V identifies public policy purposes as a reason for why courts have engaged in judicial activism. Part VI analogizes interpretations of other whistleblower statutes and whistleblower cases, to illustrate how the DFA whistleblower statutes should be interpreted. And Part VII makes reductio ad absurdum arguments which emphasize the absurd results of a broad interpretation of the statute.
Whistle While You Work: Interpreting Retaliation Remedies Available to Whistleblowers in the Dodd-Frank Act,
Fla. A&M U. L. Rev.
Available at: https://commons.law.famu.edu/famulawreview/vol13/iss1/3