Justice Byron White, who has served on the Supreme Court since 1962, indicates that arguments on how courts should approach their task in statutory construction cases deal with the extent to which courts should share in the governance of the country. Over the years, Congress has come to be the primary source of change in Federal law. The result has been that much more of the work of Federal courts involves the interpretation and application of statutory law. The 1980's have brought renewed interest in statutory construction cases, at least partially due to the increasing legislative agenda, the complexity of legislation and case subject matter, the division of congressional member time between legislative matters and service to constituents, and the growth of congressional staff and their participation in the legislative process. Some argue that, in interpreting statutes, courts should be guided almost entirely by the text of legislation. Debate over this argument has become especially intense by those who urge that a statute's plain language must be interpreted in relation to the circumstances under which it was adopted. There is also debate over courts' interpretation of ambiguous statutory language. Justice White points out that Congress has failed to provide a statute of limitations, that Congress sometimes creates rights but no remedies, and that the Eleventh Amendment protects States from private suits in Federal courts. He also notes the claim that Federal law pre-empts State law about the same subject matter and the provision by Congress in various statutes that losing defendants must pay the plaintiff's legal fees.