Plain Meaning Rule
Encyclopedia
The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction
traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “mischief rule
” and the “golden rule
.”
The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning.
The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that underlines textualism
and, to a certain extent, originalism
.
According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say.
Prof. Larry Solum expands on this premise:
Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court Chung Fook v. White
(1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.
This is sometimes termed the soft plain meaning rule, where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism
and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. United States v. X-Citement Video
, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):
In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule
.
s.
In probate
law the rule is also favored because the testator
is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will
is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.
and is still used today, primarily because judges may not legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording.
Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.
is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the Statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in that natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such a case, best declare the intention of the law giver."
Ironically, however, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel (1868; LR 4 QB 147), the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled to vote."
This, surely, cannot have been the intention of Parliament. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, only whether words have a clear meaning that makes sense within that context. If Parliament does not like the literal interpretation, then it must amend the legislation.
See Cheeseman v DPP [1990]
, the plain meaning rule is returning to favor after a period of disfavor.[source?]
Statutory interpretation
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or...
traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “mischief rule
Mischief rule
The mischief rule is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “plain meaning rule” and the “golden rule.”...
” and the “golden rule
Golden rule (law)
In law, the Golden rule, or British rule, is a form of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “plain meaning rule” and the “mischief rule.”...
.”
The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning.
The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that underlines textualism
Textualism
Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or...
and, to a certain extent, originalism
Originalism
In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. It is based on the principle that the judiciary is not supposed to create, amend or repeal laws but only to uphold...
.
Meaning
To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. But some statutes omit a definitions section entirely, or (more commonly) fail to define a particular term. The plain meaning rule attempts to guide courts faced with litigation that turns on the meaning of a term not defined by the statute, or on that of a word found within a definition itself.According to the plain meaning rule, absent a contrary definition within the statute, words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the legislator may have been different or the result is harsh or undesirable. The literal rule is what the law says instead of what the law was intended to say.
Prof. Larry Solum expands on this premise:
Soft Plain Meaning Rule
Justices normally impose an absurdity limit on this rule, which states that a statute cannot be interpreted literally if it would lead to an absurd result. In the Supreme Court Chung Fook v. White
Chung Fook v. White
Chung Fook v. White, 264 U.S. 443 , was a landmark Supreme Court case. It was significant in that it marked the end of the era of strict plain meaning interpretation of statutes and the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.A man did not...
(1924) marked the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.
This is sometimes termed the soft plain meaning rule, where the statute is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. For example, see Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892). Even the most vocal supporters of textualism
Textualism
Textualism is a formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or...
and the plain meaning rule have been willing to commute "strict" plain meaning to "soft" plain meaning to a certain extent, in some circumstances; see, e.g. United States v. X-Citement Video
United States v. X-Citement Video
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., was a federal criminal prosecution filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles against X-Citement Video and its owner Rubin Gottesman. The charge was trafficking in child pornography, specifically videos...
, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting):
In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the Golden Rule
Golden rule (law)
In law, the Golden rule, or British rule, is a form of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “plain meaning rule” and the “mischief rule.”...
.
Reasons favored
Proponents of the plain meaning rule claim that it prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. They also point out that ordinary people and lawyers do not have extensive access to secondary sourceSecondary source
In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct...
s.
In probate
Probate
Probate is the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person by resolving all claims and distributing the deceased person's property under the valid will. A probate court decides the validity of a testator's will...
law the rule is also favored because the testator
Testator
A testator is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death. It is any "person who makes a will."-Related terms:...
is typically not around to indicate what interpretation of a will
Will (law)
A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his/her estate and provides for the transfer of his/her property at death...
is appropriate. Therefore, it is argued, extrinsic evidence should not be allowed to vary the words used by the testator or their meaning. It can help to provide for consistency in interpretation.
Criticism
This is the oldest of the rules of constructionStatutory interpretation
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or...
and is still used today, primarily because judges may not legislate. As there is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of making law, some judges prefer to adhere to the law's literal wording.
Opponents of the plain meaning rule claim that the rule rests on the erroneous assumption that words have a fixed meaning. In fact, words are imprecise, leading justices to impose their own prejudices to determine the meaning of a statute. However, since little else is offered as an alternative discretion-confining theory, plain meaning survives.
Doctrine of Absurdity
In law, strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to logically deduce absurdities, and the Doctrine of Absurdity is that commonsense interpretations should be used in such cases, rather than literal reading of a law or of original intent. The Absurdity doctrine is a doctrine in legal theory, also known as "Scrivner's Error"; in which American courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. It is contrasted withBritish history
An explanation of the rule was given in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844; 1 Cl&Fin 85). "The only rule for construction of Acts of ParliamentAct of Parliament
An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament. In the Republic of Ireland the term Act of the Oireachtas is used, and in the United States the term Act of Congress is used.In Commonwealth countries, the term is used both in a narrow...
is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the Statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in that natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such a case, best declare the intention of the law giver."
Ironically, however, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel (1868; LR 4 QB 147), the court came to the reluctant conclusion that Whiteley could not be convicted of impersonating "any person entitled to vote" at an election, because the person he impersonated was dead. Using a literal construction of the relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not "a person entitled to vote."
This, surely, cannot have been the intention of Parliament. However, the literal rule does not take into account the consequences of a literal interpretation, only whether words have a clear meaning that makes sense within that context. If Parliament does not like the literal interpretation, then it must amend the legislation.
See Cheeseman v DPP [1990]
United States history
In the Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
, the plain meaning rule is returning to favor after a period of disfavor.[source?]
See also
- Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 573
- Purposive interpretation
- Caminetti v. United StatesCaminetti v. United StatesCaminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Farley Drew Caminetti and the Mann Act. The Court decided that the Mann Act applied not only to purposes of prostitution but also to other noncommercial consensual sexual liaisons...
- Chung Fook v. WhiteChung Fook v. WhiteChung Fook v. White, 264 U.S. 443 , was a landmark Supreme Court case. It was significant in that it marked the end of the era of strict plain meaning interpretation of statutes and the beginning of the looser American Rule that the intent of the law was more important than its text.A man did not...
- United States v. KirbyUnited States v. KirbyUnited States v. Kirby, 74 U.S. 482 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that statutes must be construed reasonably.- Facts :...