Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Enrolled bill rule
open-in-new
<h2 id="united-kingdom">United Kingdom</h2> <p>The doctrine was adopted in <i><a href="/facts/The_King_v._Arundel/6JudrVGu">The King v. Arundel</a></i>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:2" href="#fn:2"><sup>2</sup></a> It was based on the proposition that when an <a href="/facts/Acts_of_Parliament_in_the_United_Kingdom/apqk8I13">Act</a> was passed and assented to, it was affixed with the Great Seal, the "effective legal act of enactment".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:3" href="#fn:3"><sup>3</sup></a> It was "a regal act, and no official might dispute the king's word". </p><p>The enrolled bill rule was restated by <a href="/facts/John_Campbell,_1st_Baron_Campbell/wtU6lhgl">Lord Campbell</a> in <i>Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope</i>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:4" href="#fn:4"><sup>4</sup></a> In that case it was complained that the passage of a <a href="/facts/Private_bill/fsaSuEoo">private bill</a> was defective because proper notice had not been given. The House of Lords rejected the notion that the validity of an Act could be questioned. </p> <h2 id="united-states">United States</h2> <p>In the United States, the rule was adopted by the <a href="/facts/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States/rJHothwW">Supreme Court</a> in <i><a href="/facts/Field_v._Clark/91QBlkhC">Field v. Clark</a></i>, <a href="/facts/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_143/ppt4RG1y">143</a> <a href="/facts/United_States_Reports/evJp9YUQ">U.S.</a> <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/649/">649</a> (1892). In effect, the court ruled that the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress was the best evidence of what had been passed, being on balance better evidence than the journals of the respective houses, so it should not be called into question.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:5" href="#fn:5"><sup>5</sup></a> </p> <h3>State law</h3> <p>At the time of the decision in <i>Field</i>, nine states had adopted the doctrine, and thirteen had rejected it.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:6" href="#fn:6"><sup>6</sup></a> At least two states have weakened it: </p> <ul><li>The <a href="/facts/Supreme_Court_of_Kentucky/QGFmH6Ff">Supreme Court of Kentucky</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:7" href="#fn:7"><sup>7</sup></a> has held that "there is a <a href="/facts/Prima_facie/S6wjxJk5">prima facie</a> presumption that an enrolled bill is valid but such presumption may be overcome by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional requirements have not been met".</li> <li>The <a href="/facts/Pennsylvania_Supreme_Court/EJErcUcq">Pennsylvania Supreme Court</a> has limited the application of the doctrine.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:8" href="#fn:8"><sup>8</sup></a> It held, "When a law has been passed and approved and certified in due form, it is no part of the duty of the judiciary to go behind the law as duly certified to inquire into the observance of form in its passage", but the court also noted that "it would be a serious dereliction ... to deliberately ignore a clear constitutional violation".</li></ul> <h2 id="see-also">See also</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/United_States_House_Committee_on_Enrolled_Bills/cbDsFxdl">United States House Committee on Enrolled Bills</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Parliamentary_sovereignty/E49ufo3K">Parliamentary sovereignty</a></li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), citing Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). <a href="/wiki/7th_Cir." target="_blank">/wiki/7th_Cir.</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>The King v. Arundel [1616] EWHC J11 (Ch), 80 ER 258, (1617) Hobart 109 <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1616/J11.html" target="_blank">https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/1616/J11.html</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Sandler, David. "Forget What You Learned in Civics Class: The "Enrolled Bill Rule" and Why It's Time to Overrule Field v. Clark" (PDF). Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. 41: 217–19. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-29. Retrieved 2011-07-05. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120129192124/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Winter%202007/sandler.pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20120129192124/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Winter%202007/sandler.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Company v Wauchope [1842] UKHL J12, (1842) 1 Bell 278, 8 Cl & Fin 710, 8 ER 279 (22 March 1842) <a href="https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1842/J12.html" target="_blank">https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1842/J12.html</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>143 U.S. 649. <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=143&invol=649" target="_blank">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=143&invol=649</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>143 U.S. 649. <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=143&invol=649" target="_blank">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=143&invol=649</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>D&W Auto Supply v. Dept. of Revenue, 602 S.W.2d 420 (Ky. 1980) <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Consumer Party of Pa. v. Commonwealth, 507 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1986). <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>