Hillel Levin has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This Article introduces and explores a new approach to statutory interpretation, one that I call the contemporary meaning and expectations approach. This approach posits that judges interpreting ambiguous statutes are and should be constrained by the understanding and expectations of the contemporary public as to the law’s meaning and application. These, in turn, are developed in response to, and are mediated by, the actions and statements of government officials. In a crass sense, what people reasonably think the law is should in fact be recognized by judges as the law. This approach gives normative force in the statutory interpretation context to the familiar descriptive legal realist view that the law is what those governed by it predict the enforcers of the law will do. It also represents an inversion of the typical top-down narrative concerning the generation and implementation of statutory law. The Article argues, however, that this apparently radical approach is embedded in and best explains several doctrines of statutory interpretation. Further, the approach serves judicially conservative ends: promoting accessibility of the law to those governed by it, supporting social and legal stability and predictability, privileging organic and incremental change over radical breach, encouraging judicial minimalism on the one hand and legislative maximalism on the other, and fostering equality.