Prior law context is always relevant to interpreting a statute’s purpose.

Evidence

Is it a sound conclusion that the state of the prior law ought always to be taken into account in determining the purpose of a statute, and is always relevant, therefore, in every case of interpretation except one in which the purpose of the statute has already been authoritatively determined? How could it be otherwise? Can any purposive act be understood without regard to the circumstances which prompted the act? — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1713

Categorization

• XREF: This is the core hermeneutic point that the purpose of a statute can only be known against the background of prior law — connects to the chapter’s interpretive-theory threads. — connects to: Comparing a statute to prior law often only raises questions requiring further evidence. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1715; Statutes must be interpreted in light of their whole historical and systemic context. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1318