The enrolled bill rule, is a principle of judicial interpretation of rules of procedure in legislative bodies. Under the doctrine, once a bill passes a legislative body and is signed into law, the courts assume that all rules of procedure in the enactment process were properly followed. That is, "[i]f a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted."[1]
Contents |
The doctrine was adopted in The King v Arundel.[2] It was based on the proposition that the when an Act was passed and assented to, it was affixed with the Great Seal, the "effective legal act of enactment".[3] It was "a regal act, and no official might dispute the king's word."
The enrolled bill rule was restated by Lord Campbell in Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope[4] In that case it was complained that the passage of a private bill 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. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and the Regency Acts 1937 and 1953 changed the enrolled bill rule. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide that a Bill can be sent for Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords.
In the United States, the rule was adopted by the Supreme Court in the 1892 case Field v. Clark[5] 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.[5]
At the time of the decision in Field, nine states had adopted the doctrine, and 13 had rejected it.[5] At least two states have weakened it: