Abstract
Textualism preaches two unalterable truths regarding statutory interpretation. First, the judge's proper focus is the statute's text.' Second, the judge shall not consult legislative history in interpreting that text. The textualist method largely rests upon these two pillars.
This Article argues that textualists ignore an equally fundamental aspect of the interpretive enterprise: the inseparability of text and context. That is, a text's meaning becomes determinate only when paired with a specific context. For example, consider a sign that admonishes, "Keep off the grass." Hanging on the wall of a drug rehabilitation clinic, the sign implores abstention from drugs, but when planted in a well-manicured lawn, the sign enjoins passersby from stepping on the turf.' Pairing the same text with different contexts changes the text's meaning.