Statutory interpretation
Encyclopedia
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 vagueness
in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.
In common law
jurisdictions, the judiciary
may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature
or to delegated legislation
such as administrative agency regulation
s.
interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:
Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires statutory construction. It is a tenet of statutory construction that the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. Nevertheless in practice, by performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the operation of the law.
are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the United Kingdom
this principle is known as Parliamentary Sovereignty
. In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
Federal
jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In Canada
, there are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in s. 91 -- known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause -- or the provinces residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(10) of the 1867 Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably the United States
and Australia
, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal Constitution
, the states will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions.
A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. Where there is an inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.
These provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered nonsubstantive and non-enforcable in and of themselves.
process through the choices of judges. Proponents of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to legislate from the bench
. Critics argue that a judge always has a choice between competing canons that lead to different results, so judicial discretion is only hidden through the use of canons, not reduced.
names.
Plain meaning: When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule
in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470
(1917), reasoning "[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."
Ejusdem generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature"): When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes).
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"): Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as".
In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject"): When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
Noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps"): When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
Reddendo singula singulis ("refers only to the last"): When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a hospital.
Generalia specialibus non derogant ("the general does not detract from the specific"): Described in The Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App. Cas. 59 as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially—but not necessarily—in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law.
"Charming Betsy" Canon : National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law. See Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64
(1804): "It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains..."
Interpretation in Light of Fundamental Values : Statute does not violate fundamental societal values. See, for example, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457
(1892).
Rule of Lenity : In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).
Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty : See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); see also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006); see also Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003)
"Indian" Canon : National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans. See Chicksaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84
(2001): "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit."
Deference to Administrative Interpretations (US Chevron deference) : If a statute administered by an agency is ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the courts will defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This rule of deference was formulated by the United States Supreme Court
in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
.
Avoidance Canon (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance) : If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.
Avoiding Absurdity : The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.
Clear statement rule
: When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time") : When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails.
However, it could be argued that the fundamental nature of language is to blame for the problem of "for every canon, a counter." Interpreting whether a statute applies to a given set of facts often boils down to analyzing whether a single word or short phrase covers some element of the factual situation before the judge. The expansiveness of language necessarily means that there will often be good (or equally unconvincing) arguments for two competing interpretations. A judge is then forced to resort to documentation of legislative intent, which may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. Canons of statutory construction give judges the ability to decide questions of statutory interpretation that necessarily rely on an element of judicial discretion.
Legislation
Legislation is law which has been promulgated by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it...
. Some amount of interpretation is always necessary when a case involves a statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity
Ambiguity
Ambiguity of words or phrases is the ability to express more than one interpretation. It is distinct from vagueness, which is a statement about the lack of precision contained or available in the information.Context may play a role in resolving ambiguity...
or vagueness
Vagueness
The term vagueness denotes a property of concepts . A concept is vague:* if the concept's extension is unclear;* if there are objects which one cannot say with certainty whether belong to a group of objects which are identified with this concept or which exhibit characteristics that have this...
in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.
In common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
jurisdictions, the judiciary
Judiciary
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes...
may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature
Legislature
A legislature is a kind of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend, and repeal laws. The law created by a legislature is called legislation or statutory law. In addition to enacting laws, legislatures usually have exclusive authority to raise or lower taxes and adopt the budget and...
or to delegated legislation
Delegated legislation
In the United Kingdom, delegated legislation is legislation or law that is passed otherwise than in an Act of Parliament . Instead, an enabling Act confers a power to make delegated legislation on a Government Minister or another person or body...
such as administrative agency regulation
Regulation
Regulation is administrative legislation that constitutes or constrains rights and allocates responsibilities. It can be distinguished from primary legislation on the one hand and judge-made law on the other...
s.
Meaning
The judiciaryJudiciary
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes...
interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:
- Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous and change in meaning over time.
- Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures make application of existing laws difficult.
- Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as the need for compromise or catering to special interest groups.
Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced. This requires statutory construction. It is a tenet of statutory construction that the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. Nevertheless in practice, by performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the operation of the law.
Conflicts between sources of law
Where legislation and case lawCase law
In law, case law is the set of reported judicial decisions of selected appellate courts and other courts of first instance which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis...
are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
this principle is known as Parliamentary Sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty
Parliamentary sovereignty is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. In the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, a legislative body has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is supreme to all other government institutions—including any executive or judicial bodies...
. In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
- U.S. Supreme Court: "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254. - Supreme Court of VirginiaSupreme Court of VirginiaThe Supreme Court of Virginia is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It primarily hears appeals from the trial-level city and county Circuit Courts, as well as the criminal law, family law and administrative law cases that go through the Court of Appeals of Virginia. It is one of...
: "Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 335Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929). - Supreme Court of Alaska: "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996);
- Supreme Court of New Mexico: "The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature using the plain language of the statute as the primary indicator of legislative intent." State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 242, 880 P.2d 845, 853 (1994) “The words of a statute . . . should be given their ordinary meaning, absent clear and express legislative intention to the contrary,” as long as the ordinary meaning does “not render the statute’s application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust.” State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) When the meaning of a statute is unclear or ambiguous, we have recognized that it is “the high duty and responsibility of the judicial branch of government to facilitate and promote the legislature’s accomplishment of its purpose.” State ex rel. Helman v. Gallegos, 117 N.M. 346, 353, 871 P.2d 1352, 1359 (1994). - New Mexico v. Juan, 2010-NMSC-041, August 9, 2010
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: "As in all statutory construction cases, we begin with the language of the statute. The first step is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case." Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002) "[U]nless otherwise defined, statutory words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning." United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1994).
Federal
Federal republic
A federal republic is a federation of states with a republican form of government. A federation is the central government. The states in a federation also maintain the federation...
jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In Canada
Canada
Canada is a North American country consisting of ten provinces and three territories. Located in the northern part of the continent, it extends from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and northward into the Arctic Ocean...
, there are areas of law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in s. 91 -- known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause -- or the provinces residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(10) of the 1867 Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
and Australia
Australia
Australia , officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a country in the Southern Hemisphere comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is the world's sixth-largest country by total area...
, where it is presumed that if legislation is not enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal Constitution
Constitution
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
, the states will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions.
Internal and external consistency
It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. The ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear. The rule results that where "general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated." 49 F. Supp. 846, 859. Thus, in a statute forbidding the concealment on one's person of "pistols, revolvers, derringers, or other dangerous weapons," the term "dangerous weapons" may be construed to comprehend only dangerous weapons of the kind enumerated, i.e., firearms, or perhaps more narrowly still, handguns. Here, the term "dangerous weapons" must be given a meaning of the "same kind" as the word of established meaning.A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes. Where there is an inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation.
Statements of the legislature
Legislative bodies themselves may try to influence or assist the courts in interpreting their laws by placing into the legislation itself statements to that effect. These provisions have many different names, but are typically noted as:- Findings;
- Declarations, sometimes suffixed with of Policy or of Intent; or
- Sense of Congress, or of either house in multi-chamber bodies.
These provisions of the bill simply give the legislature's goals and desired effects of the law, and are considered nonsubstantive and non-enforcable in and of themselves.
Canons
Also known as canons of construction, canons give common sense guidance to courts in interpreting the meaning of statutes. Most canons emerge from the common lawCommon law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
process through the choices of judges. Proponents of the use of canons argue that the canons constrain judges and limit the ability of the courts to legislate from the bench
Judicial activism
Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial...
. Critics argue that a judge always has a choice between competing canons that lead to different results, so judicial discretion is only hidden through the use of canons, not reduced.
Textual
Textual canons are rules of thumb for understanding the words of the text. Some of the canons are still known by their traditional LatinLatin
Latin is an Italic language originally spoken in Latium and Ancient Rome. It, along with most European languages, is a descendant of the ancient Proto-Indo-European language. Although it is considered a dead language, a number of scholars and members of the Christian clergy speak it fluently, and...
names.
Plain meaning: When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule
Plain Meaning Rule
The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts...
in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1917), reasoning "[i]t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."
Ejusdem generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature"): When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes).
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"): Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as".
In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject"): When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
Noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps"): When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
Reddendo singula singulis ("refers only to the last"): When a list of words has a modifying phrase at the end, the phrase refers only to the last, e.g., firemen, policemen, and doctors in a hospital.
Generalia specialibus non derogant ("the general does not detract from the specific"): Described in The Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App. Cas. 59 as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially—but not necessarily—in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law.
Substantive
Substantive canons instruct the court to favor interpretations that promote certain values or policy results."Charming Betsy" Canon : National statute must be construed so as not to conflict with international law. See Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1804): "It has also been observed that an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains..."
Interpretation in Light of Fundamental Values : Statute does not violate fundamental societal values. See, for example, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1892).
Rule of Lenity : In construing an ambiguous criminal statute, the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant. See McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987); See, e.g., Muscarello v. U.S., 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (declining to apply the rule of lenity); Evans v. U.S., 504 U.S. 255 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Scarborough v. U.S., 431 U.S. 563 (1977) (Stewart, J., dissenting); See United States v. Santos (2008).
Avoidance of abrogation of state sovereignty : See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991); see also Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006); see also Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003)
"Indian" Canon : National statute must be construed in favor of Native Americans. See Chicksaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2001): "statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of Indians with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit."
Deference
Deference canons instruct the court to defer to the interpretation of another institution, such as an administrative agency or Congress. These canons reflect an understanding that the judiciary is not the only branch of government entrusted with constitutional responsibility.Deference to Administrative Interpretations (US Chevron deference) : If a statute administered by an agency is ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the courts will defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This rule of deference was formulated by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme 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...
in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers...
, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
.
Avoidance Canon (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance) : If a statute is susceptible to more than one reasonable construction, courts should choose an interpretation that avoids raising constitutional problems. In the US, this canon has grown stronger in recent history. The traditional avoidance canon required the court to choose a different interpretation only when one interpretation was actually unconstitutional. The modern avoidance canon tells the court to choose a different interpretation when another interpretation merely raises constitutional doubts.
Avoiding Absurdity : The legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result.
Clear statement rule
Clear statement rule
In American law, the clear statement rule is a guideline for statutory construction, instructing courts to not interpret a statute in a way that will have particular consequences unless the statute makes unmistakably clear its intent to achieve that result...
: When a statute may be interpreted to abridge long-held rights of individuals or states, or make a large policy change, courts will not interpret the statute to make the change unless the legislature clearly stated it. This rule is based on the assumption that the legislature would not make major changes in a vague or unclear way, and to ensure that voters are able to hold the appropriate legislators responsible for the modification.
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, aka "Last in Time") : When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails.
Criticism
Critics of the use of canons argue that canons impute some sort of "omniscience" to the legislator, suggesting that it is aware of the canons when constructing the laws. In addition, it is argued that the canons give a credence to judges who want to construct the law a certain way, imparting a false sense of justification to their otherwise arbitrary process. In a classic article, Karl Llewellyn argued that every canon had a "counter-canon" that would lead to the opposite interpretation of the statute.However, it could be argued that the fundamental nature of language is to blame for the problem of "for every canon, a counter." Interpreting whether a statute applies to a given set of facts often boils down to analyzing whether a single word or short phrase covers some element of the factual situation before the judge. The expansiveness of language necessarily means that there will often be good (or equally unconvincing) arguments for two competing interpretations. A judge is then forced to resort to documentation of legislative intent, which may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. Canons of statutory construction give judges the ability to decide questions of statutory interpretation that necessarily rely on an element of judicial discretion.
Philosophies
Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favor. Some of the better known rules of construction methods are:- The Golden ruleGolden 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 Literal rule
- The Mischief ruleMischief ruleThe 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.”...
- The Purposive approach
See also
- Interpretation ActInterpretation ActInterpretation Act is a stock short title used in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom for legislation relating to interpretation of legislation.-Republic of Ireland:...
- Judicial activismJudicial activismJudicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial...
- Judicial interpretationJudicial interpretationJudicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation...
- Statutory term analysisStatutory term analysisStatutory term analysis is a method of analyzing a statutory term in a law to ensure that it is Congress, not a judge, who has the power to make laws under Article I, section 8, clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution...
- Rule of lawRule of lawThe rule of law, sometimes called supremacy of law, is a legal maxim that says that governmental decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws with minimal discretion in their application...
- Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 573
Further reading
- CRS Report for Congress: "Statutory interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends" (public domain - can be copied into article with citations)
- The multi-volume Sutherland Statutory Construction is the authoritative text on the rules of statutory construction.
- Karl Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Rules or Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed 3 Vand. L. Rev. 395 (1950).
- United States of America v. William C. Scrimgeour 636 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1981) discusses most aspects of statutory construction.
- Brudney & Ditslear, Canons of Construction and the Elusive Quest for Neutral Reasoning
- Sinclair, Michael, "Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A Critique". New York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006.
- Jon May, "Statutory Construction: Not For The Timid", The Champion Magazine (NACDL), January/February 2006.
- Corrigan & Thomas, “Dice Loading” Rules Of Statutory Interpretation, 59 NYU Annual Survey Of American Law 231, 238 (2003).
- The Rules of Statutory Construction (Virginia)
- Statutory Interpretation, by Ruth Sullivan, 1997. Canadian examples and explanations.
- Menahem Pasternak, Christophe Rico, Tax Interpretation, Planning, and Avoidance: Some Linguistic Analysis, 23 Akron Tax Journal, 33 (2008) (http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/taxjournal/atj23/docs/Pasternak08.pdf).