Legal Theory Blog

All the theory that fits.

Legal Theory Lexicon: Superstatutes

Introduction

The usual story we tell about statutes is that every statute has the same “force of law,” irrespective of age or importance. Some statutes might be more consequential than others; other statutes might be entrenched politically. But their legal status is the same. The usual story has been challenged by the idea that there is a small set of statutes called “superstatutes,” and that these statutes have special force, shaping the interpretation of other statutes and even the Constitution itself. The Administrative Procedure Act has been proposed as the clearest example. The idea of superstatutes was introduced by William Eskridge and John Ferejohn in their much-discussed article Super-Statutes, published in 2001. This Lexicon entry introduces the concept of a superstatute, identifies its theoretical stakes, and connects it to other topics in legal theory. As always, the audience is law students with an interest in legal theory — especially first-year students encountering these debates for the first time.

The Eskridge-Ferejohn Framework

The term “superstatute” was introduced by Eskridge and Ferejohn in a 2001 article and developed at book length in A Republic of Statutes. On their account, a superstatute has three defining features. First, it seeks to establish a new normative or institutional framework for state policy — not a narrow regulatory adjustment but a foundational commitment. Second, it sticks: it survives political transitions, retains broad public support across changes in partisan control, and becomes embedded in public culture. Third, it exerts gravitational force on surrounding law, influencing the interpretation of other statutes, the practice of agencies, and sometimes the development of constitutional doctrine. These three features are jointly necessary. Many statutes have foundational ambitions; only a few become entrenched in the relevant sense; fewer still radiate interpretive influence beyond their own four corners.

Canonical Examples

Eskridge and Ferejohn offer a familiar set of examples. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 established the framework for modern American administrative law, structured the relationship between agencies and the federal courts, and has been defended by Eskridge and Ferejohn themselves as a paradigmatic superstatute. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 created the basic framework for American competition policy, survived more than a century of economic and political change, and shaped doctrines well beyond antitrust itself. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 reorganized American law’s relationship to race and equality, becoming entrenched in public culture and influencing constitutional interpretation. The Social Security Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act have been offered as further examples. The list is contested, and reasonable scholars disagree about marginal cases. The fact that superstatute status is disputed is itself important. These disputes suggest that the superstatute category is fuzzy or open-textured, with a few core exemplars and other statutes with a disputed status. The criteria for superstatute status are scalar (on a spectrum) and not binary (like an on/off switch): so, it is not surprising that there are disputes about borderline cases.

Superstatutes and Statutory Interpretation

As formulated by Eskridge and Ferejohn, the superstatute theory has implications for statutory interpretation. They argue that superstatutes warrant a more purposivist and dynamic interpretive approach than ordinary statutes. Their reasoning runs as follows: because a superstatute functions as a foundational framework for an evolving policy domain, its interpretation must accommodate new applications and changing conditions. Strict textualism, on this view, fits poorly with the framework-establishing character of superstatutes.

Frequent readers of the Legal Theory Blog will recall that there are three basic approaches to statutory interpretation (see Theories of Statutory Interpretation and Construction: Legal Theory Lexicon 078). The predominant theory in the Supreme Court is textualism, which holds that statutory doctrines and applications must be consistent with the communicative content of statutory text. The rivals of textualism include subjective intentionalism, which holds that statutes should be given constructions that implement the policy preferences of Congress (“congressional intent”), and objective purposivism, which argues that statutory implementing doctrines should aim to achieve the objective purposes or functions that can be inferred from the design and structure of the statute.

One way of understanding Eskridge and Ferejohn’s claim is that they are analogizing superstatutes to the Constitution and arguing for “living superstatutes” and against “superstatute originalism.” Just as constitutional originalists argue against living constitutionalism, statutory textualists can argue that, for reasons of the rule of law and separation of powers, judges should not be given the power to amend superstatutes in the guise of purposivist statutory construction.

Superstatutes and Constitutional Theory

The most provocative move in Eskridge and Ferejohn’s framework is the suggestion that superstatutes occupy a quasi-constitutional position in the American legal order. On this reading, the American constitutional system is not exhausted by the canonical text amended through the Article V process. It also includes a layer of small-c constitutional law constituted by superstatutes — what Eskridge and Ferejohn call “the new American constitution.” This claim invites comparison with Bruce Ackerman’s theory of constitutional moments, which locates higher lawmaking in episodes of popular mobilization outside the Article V process. Both theories aim to capture forms of fundamental legal change that escape the formal amendment procedure. They differ on the mechanism: Ackerman emphasizes deliberative engagement by the People; Eskridge and Ferejohn emphasize legislative entrenchment plus public-cultural absorption.

Because superstatute theory challenges the conventional wisdom that Article V draws a hard line between the Constitution and ordinary statutes, it draws objections from various theories of constitutional interpretation and construction. For example, originalists will challenge the view that superstatutes can gain quasi-constitutional status without going through the processes for proposal and ratification specified by Article V. Thayerians and adherents to John Hart Ely’s representation-reinforcement theory might object that judicial entrenchment of superstatutes against ordinary legislative change lacks democratic legitimacy. Both originalists and Thayerians might agree that superstatute theory opens the door to juristocracy in the guise of statutory interpretation.

Living constitutionalists have several routes for incorporating superstatute theory. Constitutional pluralists might incorporate superstatutes as a particularly powerful instantiation of the “historical practice” modality. Common law constitutionalists might argue that the interpretation of superstatutes should be guided by common law methods rather than freewheeling purposivism. The moral readings approach might incorporate superstatute theory by arguing that superstatutes exert especially strong gravitational force on the moral theory that best fits and justifies the law as a whole.

The Constitution Outside the Constitution

Ernest Young has developed a related but distinct framework in his important article, The Constitution Outside the Constitution. Young proposes a thought experiment: what if we defined the Constitution by function rather than by form? On a functional definition, “the Constitution” would include not only the canonical Article V text but also statutes, executive materials, and entrenched practices that perform constitutive functions — creating governmental institutions, conferring rights, and structuring federal-state relations. Young’s argument implies that the United States Constitution might be understood as more like the British Constitution than conventional wisdom suggests. The British Constitution lacks a single canonical text but includes a range of constitutive statutes such as Magna Carta and the Parliament Acts. Young’s key analytic move is to decouple two features that we tend to conflate: the constitutive function and formal entrenchment against legal change. These features can come apart. A statute can perform constitutive functions — structuring the operation of government in fundamental ways — without being formally entrenched. The Administrative Procedure Act, the Sherman Act, and the Social Security Act are, on Young’s view, part of the working constitution of the United States even though they remain vulnerable to ordinary legislative repeal. Young’s framework is a close cousin of superstatute theory and is often discussed alongside it.

Superstatutes and the Rule of Recognition

From a positivist perspective, we could also ask questions about the relationship of superstatutes to the rule of recognition — the social rule that identifies what counts as law within a given legal system. Do superstatutes affect the criteria for legal validity? Would a Supreme Court decision invalidating the Administrative Procedure Act be viewed as null and void? Or would the rule of recognition that is currently in force recognize radical changes in superstatutes as legally valid? Depending on the answers to questions like these, we might think that the claimed special status of superstatutes is deeply embedded in the law, on the one hand, or that it is grounded in politics and therefore subject to change via ordinary political and judicial mechanisms which themselves are responsive to political forces.

Critiques

Superstatute theory is controversial, with critics raising the following objections. The first is the worry that the framework conflates legal status with political popularity — that durable entrenchment may reflect coalitional success rather than any deeper legal or normative authority. The second is a formal concern about the hierarchy of legal sources: a doctrine that elevates some statutes above others may sit uneasily with the formal principle that all statutes share the same legal status under Article VI. A third objection concerns statutory interpretation. To the extent that superstatute theory relies on statutory purposivism, it is vulnerable to standard critiques of that theory, including the argument that the true source of “objective purposes” is judicial beliefs about what goals or functions statutes should serve, because statutes themselves cannot have purposes or goals of their own. These critiques do not refute superstatute theory, but they identify pressure points that any defender of the framework must address.

Conclusion

Superstatute theory adds important ideas to the theoretical debates about statutory and constitutional interpretation and challenges the conventional wisdom that draws a sharp line between the legal force of statutes and constitutional provisions. Frequently, the first-year curriculum includes the course in Constitutional Law and a required or elective course called “Legislation and Regulation” (“LegReg”). These courses engage clusters of legal theory that are directly relevant to the debates over superstatutes. And if you take LegReg or a similar course in your first year, the Administrative Procedure Act and statutory interpretation will be an important part of your first-year experience. This entry in the Legal Theory Lexicon gives you a set of tools and arguments for beginning to think about these topics.

Related Lexicon Entries

Bibliography

  • Bruce Ackerman, We the People: Foundations (Harvard University Press 1991).
  • Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Harvard University Press 1996).
  • John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press 1980).
  • William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn, The APA as a Super-Statute: Deep Compromise and Judicial Review of Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1893 (2023).
  • William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn, A Republic of Statutes: The New American Constitution (Yale University Press 2010).
  • William N. Eskridge, Jr. & John Ferejohn, Super-Statutes, 50 Duke L.J. 1215 (2001).
  • James B. Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 Harv. L. Rev. 129 (1893).
  • Ernest A. Young, The Constitution Outside the Constitution, 117 Yale L.J. 408 (2007).

(Last modified May 24, 2026.)

Link to the Most Recent Version of this Lexicon Entry

Legal Theory Lexicon 112: Superstatutes

To subscribe to Legal Theory Stack with all of the content of Legal Theory Blog (including weekly Legal Theory Lexicon updates) delivered to your inbox, follow this link: https://lsolum.substack.com/subscribe.

Lawrence Solum

Recent Posts