What difference do starting points make? The question is important for decision making in general and for law in particular, including the interpretation of statutes. Judges must begin the interpretive process somewhere. Today, Supreme Court opinions sometimes promote the idea of starting with the text of the statute at issue. But what does this mean, in practice, and does it matter to decisions? “Start with the text” could be a signal of allegiance to an interpretive school and an indication that some interpretive tools are more important than or even lexically superior to others. At present, however, the statement delivers neither of those messages well. Instead, we might think about the statement as a rule for sequencing sources. Although the mere sequence in which information is considered does not have any clear logical significance for case results, the idea of starting with statutory text can become almost unnervingly significant — and without adding lexical priority.Decades of studies show that the order in which information is presented can influence decisions, apart from what formal logic dictates. But the direction of order effects can be counterintuitive and sensitive to the decision environment, which suggests complications for a “start with the text” sequencing rule. Depending on several factors, the first item of information will matter most, the last item will matter most, or there will be no order effect. Furthermore, even if order effects are predicted accurately, some psychological mechanisms that produce order effects are normatively problematic for judicial use. Finally, an effective sequencing rule requires an implementation strategy with a foundation far away from standard theorizing about interpretive method. Foregrounding implementation issues and the real world of interpretive architecture suggests that, if judges want to harness order effects, they probably should turn to the most important sources last, not first.

中文翻译：

---

从文本开始—法定解释及其后的顺序效应

起点有什么区别？这个问题对于一般的决策尤其是法律，包括法规的解释都是重要的。法官必须在某处开始解释过程。今天，最高法院的意见有时会提倡从有争议的法规文本入手。但是，这实际上意味着什么，并且对决策有影响吗？“从文本开始”可能表示对一个解释学校的效忠，并表明某些解释工具比其他解释工具更重要，甚至在词汇上优于其他解释工具。但是，目前，该语句不能很好地传递这些消息。取而代之的是，我们可能会将该语句视为排序源的规则。尽管仅考虑信息的顺序对案件结果没有任何明确的逻辑意义，但是以法定文本开头的想法几乎变得非常令人担忧，而且没有增加词汇优先级。数十年的研究表明，信息的顺序是除了形式逻辑所规定的内容外，所呈现的内容还可以影响决策。但是，顺序效应的方向可能与直觉相反，并且对决策环境敏感，这表明“从文本开始”排序规则的复杂性。根据多个因素，信息的第一项将最重要，最后一项将最重要，或者没有顺序影响。此外，即使可以准确预测订单效果，某些产生秩序效应的心理机制在司法上通常存在问题。最后，有效的排序规则需要一种实施策略，该策略的基础与解释方法的标准理论相去甚远。预测实施问题和解释性体系结构的现实世界表明，如果法官想利用秩序效应，他们可能应该最后而不是首先转向最重要的资源。