The problem here is that users may not realise that this is the case. Failure of legislation to cover a specific point — The legislation may have been drafted in detail, with the draftsman trying to cover every possible contingency. Despite this, situations could arise which are not specifically covered. The question then is whether the court should interpret the legislation so as to include the situation which was omitted or whether they should limit the legislation to the precise points listed by Parliament.
In the Dangerous Dogs Act S. In all legislation there is the potential for words and phrases to create uncertainty which can only be resolved by judicial interpretation. That interpretation is a creative process and inevitably involves the judiciary in the process of creating law. The question arises as to what techniques the judges should use as they are required to define that term or phrase.
A number of rules have been developed to assist judges in this process, the rules of statutory interpretation. These have been produced over the centuries by judges themselves and Parliament has played no role in their development. It can be argued, however, that Parliament remains the supreme law-making body. If it does not like the definition produced by the court, it can choose to pass new legislation which overturns the court's decision.
Making the decision to study can be a big step, which is why you'll want a trusted University. Take a look at all Open University courses. If you are new to University-level study, we offer two introductory routes to our qualifications. You could either choose to start with an Access module , or a module which allows you to count your previous learning towards an Open University qualification.
Read our guide on Where to take your learning next for more information. Not ready for formal University study? Then browse over free courses on OpenLearn and sign up to our newsletter to hear about new free courses as they are released. Every year, thousands of students decide to study with The Open University. Request an Open University prospectus OpenLearn works with other organisations by providing free courses and resources that support our mission of opening up educational opportunities to more people in more places.
Dissenting, Justice Scalia argued for a narrower reading: "[To] use an instrumentality normally means to use it for its intended purpose. When someone asks 'Do you use a cane? Similarly, to speak of 'using a firearm' is to speak of using it for its distinctive purpose, i.
The Court had less difficulty with the provision in , overruling a lower court's holding that proximity and accessibility of a firearm are alone sufficient to establish "use. The Bailey Court, however, defined "use" in such a way "active employment" as to leave the Smith holding intact.
See also Muscarello v. Abuelhawa v. Postal Service, U. The majority in Smith , which construed "use of a firearm" broadly, stated there was a general understanding that drugs and firearms are a dangerous combination and saw no reason why Congress would want to distinguish use of a firearm as a weapon in a drug crime from use of a firearm in barter in a drug crime; according to the majority, both circumstances involved a grave possibility of violence and death.
The unanimous Court in Abuelhawa , which construed "facilitate" narrowly, stated that a broad reading which would have led to higher criminal penalties could be inconsistent with the gradation of similar and more serious offenses. Cabell v. Markham, F. Justice Stevens expressed a preference for established interpretation over dictionary definitions.
Winn, U. Long Beach Fire and Ambulance Serv. O'Driscoll, F. A corollary is that use of the disjunctive "or" creates "mutually exclusive" conditions that can rule out mixing and matching. Williams, F. Moore, F.
Ballentine, U. Both "and" and "or" are context-dependent, and each word "is itself semantically ambiguous, and can be used in two quite different senses. American Bus Ass'n v.
Slater, F. See also Reid v. Angelone, F. Apotex Corp. Commissioner, U. But cf. Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, U. Warden, Metro. Correctional Center, F. Union Elec.
Consolidation Coal Co. Bankers Ins. Florida Res. Underwriting Ass'n, F. Singer ed. Davis, U. Siegel v. Thoman, U. Zerbst, U. Illinois Cent R. See also Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, U. The Dictionary Act provides that "unless the context indicates otherwise," "words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things; words importing the plural include the singular.
Amalgamated Bank, U. May 29, Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Products Corp. The same principle is used to resolve conflict between two statutes. Estate of Romani, U. See also Morton v. Mancari, U. Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, U. Alloyd Co. Quicken Loans, U. May 24, terms in phrase prohibiting giving or accepting of any "portion, split, or percentage" of a real estate settlement charge unless a service was actually rendered reinforce one another and the conclusion that the prohibition does not cover a loan provider assessing an unearned fee for itself alone.
Jarecki v. The language at issue in Graham County barred qui tam actions under the False Claims Act that were based on certain publicly available government documents, and a broad interpretation of the language effectively limited the circumstances in which private parties could sue to recover funds fraudulently obtained from the government by others.
Beecham v. The Court often explains that this and similar canons are only vehicles for ascertaining the correct meaning of otherwise uncertain terms. Train Dispatchers, U. Turkette, U. Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc. Keffeler, U. The principle cannot be applied if the enumerated categories are too "disparate.
Ohio Power Co. And, of course, context may reveal that application is inappropriate. Circuit City Stores, Inc. Adams, U. The application of the rule of ejusdem generis in this case, however, is in full accord with other sound considerations bearing upon proper interpretation of the clause. Alabama Dept. During a five-year period, the Court addressed the scope of the term "violent felony" in the Armed Career Criminal Act in four separate cases.
In the ACCA, "violent felony" includes, inter alia , a crime that "is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another " emphasis added.
In James v. United States , a five-Justice majority found that attempted burglary fit within the residual clause because it entails a significant risk of bodily injury, which, according to the majority, is the most relevant common attribute of the listed crimes, and not that they are all completed crimes, as the petitioner had argued. In Begay v. United States , the majority found DUI to fall outside the residual clause because it is too dissimilar to the listed crimes, being a crime that need not be deliberate, among other things.
With somewhat less emphasis on ejusdem generis reasoning, a unanimous Court found failure to report to prison beyond the residual clause in Chambers v. United States , finding the crime to be passive and not aggressive conduct as the listed crimes are. Two years later, a majority of the Court in Sykes v.
United States found the crime of vehicle flight to carry a level of risk, and a mens rea requirement, comparable to the listed crimes and, therefore, within the residual clause. June 9, Dissenting in Sykes , Justice Scalia reviewed the several tests the Court had derived from its various characterizations of the listed crimes in the ACCA cases and declared the residual clause to be unconstitutionally vague. Hammock v. Loan and Trust Co.
Ingalls Shipbuilding v. Patrickson, U. Barnhart v. Thomas, U. An example of the "rule of the last antecedent" not being strictly followed is Nobelman v.
American Savings Bank , U. Under a section of the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy plan can modify the "rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by [the debtor's residence]. In this instance, the rule of the last antecedent would link the modifying clause to "claims" and imply that a home mortgage does not cover an amount greater than a home's fair market value.
For policy and practical reasons, however, the Court read the modifying clause as saying "other than the rights of holders of a claim secured only by the debtor's residence. United States Trustee, U. So too, in another case the Court shied away from "the most natural grammatical reading" of a statute to avoid an interpretation that would have raised a serious issue of constitutionality.
X-Citement Video, Inc. Justice Scalia, dissenting, insisted that the language was perfectly clear, and that the rejected interpretation was "the only grammatical reading. Hibbs v. See also Bailey v. In a case analyzing the significance of the adjective "applicable" in a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, the majority opinion relied on the presumption again superfluity to hold that "applicable" had a limiting effect, whereas Justice Scalia, in dissent, observed that "[t]he canon against superfluity is not a canon against verbosity.
When a thought could have been expressed more concisely, one does not always have to cast about for some additional meaning to the word or phrase that could have been dispensed with. Wilson, U. INS, U. There is an exception for minor, unexplained changes in phraseology made during recodification—changes that courts generally assume are "not intended to alter the statute's scope. National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors, U. Defendant in Pennsylvania sent altered documentation about certain automobiles to Virginia and obtained valid Virginia auto titles incorporating false facts contained in the altered documents.
The new titles were then sent back to defendant in Pennsylvania. The federal forgery statute prohibited receipt of "falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited securities. Dissenting Justice Scalia objected to the Court's straining to avoid holding that "falsely made" is redundant: "The principle [against mere surplusage] is sound, but its limitation 'if possible' should be observed.
It should not be used to distort ordinary meaning. Nor should it be applied to obvious instances of iteration to which lawyers, alas, are particularly addicted. Coca-Cola Co. June 12, See also Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Ratzlaf v. See also Gustafson v. William Wrigley, Jr. Brown v. Gardner, U. Bossier Parish Sch. Robers v. May 5, Sullivan v. See also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co. Cline, U.
For disagreement about the appropriateness of applying this limitation, contrast the Court's opinion in Gustafson v. Keene Corp. United States.
Reynolds, U. Lindh v. Murphy, U. King v. Vincent's Hospital, U. Chapman v. See Field v. Mans, U. Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank, U. See also Franklin Nat'l Bank v. New York, U. KFC Western, Inc. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. Also Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. January 14, when Class Action Fairness Act authorizes removal of a state case to federal court as a "mass action" if the case was brought by or more persons, only named plaintiffs may be counted; in the same statute, Congress explicitly had included counting "unnamed parties in interest" toward meeting class action thresholds and could have done so under the mass action provision if it so chose.
Birmingham Bd. Winterboer, U. Justice Scalia in his opinion for the Court in Asgrow called 7 U. In another case, the Court found statutory language "incoherent" due to use of three different and conflicting standards identifying an evidentiary burden. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, U. The Court resolved the issue by treating the "incoherence" as ambiguity, and by applying the one possible construction that did not raise constitutional issues.
FMC Corp. Holliday, U. Burns v. Schweiker, F. Director, OWCP v. Newport News Shipbuilding Co. Bestfoods, U. Moreno, U. Holley, U. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. FDA v. Ordinarily the Court does not require reference to specific applications of general authority, but in this instance "hardly an ordinary case" the Court majority attached importance to the FDA's longstanding disavowal of regulatory authority over tobacco, and to subsequently enacted tobacco-specific legislation that stopped short of conferring authority to ban sale of the product.
Iselin v. See also Lamie v. Obviously, the line between the permissible filling in of statutory gaps and the impermissible adding of statutory content may be indistinct in some instances, and statutory context, congressional purpose, and overriding presumptions may tip the scales.
For example, the Court made no mention of the "absent word" rule in holding that a reference to "any entity" actually meant "any private entity" in the context of preemption. Nixon v. Andrus v. Glover Const. Demarest v. Manspeaker, U. Congress quickly acted to override this result and prohibit payment of witness fees to prisoners, P. NationsBank v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. See Abbott Laboratories v.
Portland Retail Druggists, U. For an extensive listing of substantive canons, by type, used in Supreme Court decisions from , along with accompanying case citations, see William N. S olimino U. In this instance, Justice Souter characterized the maxim that judge-made law implicitly continues to apply as an analytical starting point only, one that would give way as statutory context or purpose indicates.
The opinion eschewed any formulaic application that would make the maxim dispositive absent a "clear statement" in the statute to the contrary. Judge Wald described one such presumption as requiring that Congress "signal[ ] its intention in neon lights.
See generally pp. See also William N. Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, U. Pennsylvania Pub. Welfare Dep't v. Davenport, U. Townsend, U. Sorrell, U. Dixon, U.
June 23, Ginsburg, J. June 23, Roberts, C. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. Mortier, U. See also Medtronic Inc. Lohr, U. Nevertheless, any presumption disfavoring preemption of state law may go only so far. Mensing , for example, four Justices characterized the Supremacy Clause phrase asserting federal pre-eminence "any [state law] to the Contrary notwithstanding" as a non obstante provision that "suggests that federal law should be understood to impliedly repeal conflicting state law" and indicates limits on the extent to which courts should seek to reconcile federal and state law in preemption cases.
In contrast to the congressional intent required to support preemption of a state-based cause of action, Congress displaces a potential cause of action under federal common law i. American Electric Power Co. Connecticut, U. June 20, federal common law suit to abate greenhouse gas emissions as a public nuisance held to have been displaced by the Clean Air Act. Bond v. June 2, no clear statement from Congress that statute implementing Chemical Weapons Convention was meant to support federal prosecution of a purely local assault crime committed with harmful, but not illegal, chemical compounds.
Moran, U. Liggett Group, Inc. Compare Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. A statement asserting preemption or disclaiming intent to preempt must be clear not only as to preemptive intent, but also as to scope. In International Paper Co. Ouellette , U. See also Nixon v.
The Eleventh Amendment states that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign country. By the late nineteenth century, the amendment was understood to mean that a state generally could not be sued without its consent. The primary exception is that Congress may subject a state to suit through an exercise of its legislative authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 5 empowers Congress to pass laws effectuating civil rights promoted by the Amendment.
Hoffman v. Connecticut Income Maint. Dep't, U. Scanlon, U. Nevada Dept. Hibbs U. Compare Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, U.
March 20, disallowing a damages suit against a state for violating the personal sick leave provisions of the FMLA; personal sick leave provisions held to be beyond Section 5 authority, because the personal sick leave provisions are not sufficiently tied to curbing discrimination. Jerome v. Arguably, the Jerome Court actually overstated the case, citing United States v.
Pelzer, U. Dickerson v. New Banner Inst. Randolph Elec. Membership Corp. Nordic Village, Inc. Nordic Village , U. UMW v. Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, U. Lane v. Pena, U. Cooper, U.
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. Gozlon-Peretz v. Ordinarily, and in the absence of special circumstances, the law does not recognize fractions of the day, so a law becomes effective "from the first moment" of the effective date. Lapeyre v. United States, 17 Wall. However, "whenever it becomes important to the ends of justice Savings Bank, U.
See Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. Will, U. Landgraf v. See also Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, U. See Lynce v. Mathis, U. Jin Fuey Moy, U.
See also Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, U. Brandeis, concurring "The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.
DeBartolo Corp. California, U. Accord , Burns v. Mendell, U. Almendarez-Torres v. Sullivan, U. EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. Filardo, U. See also Microsoft Corp. But see Hartford Fire Ins. To determine whether a cause of action existed, the courts examined, on a case-by-case basis, the extent to which the alleged conduct affected American markets or investors, the extent to which the alleged conduct took place in the U.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. April 17, no jurisdiction to hear case brought by Nigerian residents of the U. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, U. Bowen v. See also McNary v. See also Lindahl v. OPM, U. The Lindahl Court contrasted other statutory language said to be "far more unambiguous and comprehensive" in precluding review.
Block v. Community Nutrition Inst. Accord , United States v. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. Volpe, U. Clearly, the courts and administrative agencies have different interests and different types of expertise, and their respective processes differ in their openness to policy considerations, both in initially interpreting a statute and amending an interpretation over time.
April 25, , dealt with the unusual circumstance in which an agency and an earlier, pre-modern deference doctrine Supreme Court case disagreed in their interpretation of the same statutory language. A plurality of the Home Concrete Court upheld the earlier judicial interpretation, primarily on its reading that the earlier opinion found Congress had left no interpretive gaps in the statutory language. Concurring in the result, Justice Scalia maintained that the earlier judicial interpretation bound the agency regardless of the earlier opinion's legal reasoning.
Chevron U. Natural Resources Defense Council, U. Chevron extends to interpretations by an agency on the extent of its own jurisdiction. City of Arlington v. FCC, U. May 20, Absent a textual directive to the contrary, a compact commission overseeing an interstate compact is not reviewed under this deferential model of judicial review. Alabama v. North Carolina, U. June 1, One variation of deference analysis comes into play whenever the Court invites an agency to submit an amicus brief interpreting an ambiguous agency regulation.
Unless there is reason to believe that the brief is a ' post hoc rationalization" taken as a litigation position, or there is another reason to believe that the brief is anything other than the agency's fair and considered judgment, the Court will defer to the interpretation in the brief if it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, U. Many scholars and courts opine that the "permissible construction," or "reasonable" interpretation, inquiry under this second step of Chevron analysis is essentially the same as determining whether an agency action is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion" for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, though some question whether the Chevron and APA standards are, or should be, wholly congruent in all cases.
Strauss, Chevron's Two Steps , 95 Va. Everhart, U. An extensive study of more than 1, Supreme Court cases decided between the issuance of Chevron in and the end of the Court's Term concluded that Chevron analysis is but one of a broad array of deference regimes that continue to be applied by Court. Zebley, U. Steelworkers, U. Unlike agency actions taken under vague or imprecise delegations of authority, actions taken under general delegations of authority to make rules and regulations to carry out a statute are due Chevron deference.
As to an agency assertion of jurisdiction delegated elsewhere, the Court stated the following in overturning a rule by the Attorney General declaring that use of a controlled substance for physician-assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical practice for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act: " Chevron deference To begin with, the rule must be promulgated pursuant to authority Congress has delegated to the official. Oregon, U. The subsequent legislation created "a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products.
As Justice Breyer's dissent pointed out, tobacco products clearly fell within the generally worded jurisdictional definitions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and it was also clear that Congress had not spoken directly to the issue anywhere else in that act. The Court's different resolution of a similar issue concerning patent protection for plant breeding illustrates that a subsequently enacted "distinct regulatory scheme" does not always trump general authority.
The Court ruled in and again in that neither the Plant Patent Act of nor the Plant Variety Protection Act—both premised on the understanding that the Patent and Trademark Office lacked authority to issue plant patents under its general utility patent authority—deprived the Office of authority to issue plant patents pursuant to that general authority.
Diamond v. This rule is always compared with the mischief rule. As mischief rule looks into the gap between the old and new law and how parliament came up with the new law and what are the new remedies brought out to resolve the problems which were exiting before, whereas the purposive construction rule is broader where it not only figure out the gap between the old and new laws but it also helps judges to make an attempt to identify what parliament meant to achieve.
The days have passed by when judges used to use only strict rule where they interpret the law only based on the meaning of the words used in the statute, but now court seeks to give effect to the purposive rule where it not only consider the words of the statute according to their meaning but also according to the context. In this case, there were five students who were immigrants came to London for the purpose of studies. They challenged the refusal to allow them grants for their education.
Long-standing authority on the meaning of the expression was referred to. The natural and ordinary meaning of ordinary residence had been settled by two tax cases. Here it is considered that the items which are not on the list are not covered by the statute. When something is expressly mentioned in the statute it leads to the presumption that the things which are not specified in the statute are excluded. General words in a statute must receive a general construction unless the statute is specifying any special meaning to the general words.
Whenever something is added in the statute it is added with the due consciousness. It is assumed that if something is not added in the statute there is a reason behind it, which is to exclude that from the particular statute.
It is one of the best and the strongest way of interpretation. As time passes by words used in the statute will undergo changes in their meaning but when it is interpreted the word should bear its original and same meaning as the statute intended when it was passed. The meaning of the law should be interpreted in the context when the law was formulated.
Old statutes must be interpreted in such a way where that defines its purpose of introducing it. And it also considers the prior usage and interest or of enforcing the act at the time when the law was enacted. If the word is wrongly interpreted for all these years those kinds of words will not be eligible for interpretation.
The words can only be interpreted by the court when the title of the property may be affected or when everyday transactions have been affected. Noscitur a soclis is a Latin term which means associated words, the meaning of unclear words or phrases is to be determined or interpreted on the basis of its context and the words and phrases surrounding it.
Associated words try to explain the meaning of the general words and also limit the interpretation of specific or special terms. When a word used in a statute is ambiguous or vague, the meaning of such words will be determined by looking associated words around it. These surrounded associate words will give clear and specific meaning to it.
The importance of this rule is it aims to interpret by reading the whole statute. The words are understood in a cognitive sense and the intention of the legislatures can be easily understood. Interpretation is the process of finding out the true essence of the enactment, by giving natural and ordinary meaning to the words of enactment. This helps in ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute.
The main objective of the interpretation of statutes is to determine the intention of the legislature where the meanings of the words are expressly or impliedly mentioned. Courts sometimes interpret the statute In an arbitrary manner, so in order to overcome all these confusions, certain principles have evolved out of the continuous exercise by the courts. Rules of interpretation act as a tool in determining the meaning of the particular act which is mainly divided into two they are:.
Judges while interpreting a statute takes many things into consideration. Determining the primary meaning of the statutory words. And where there is ambiguity in the meaning of the words in the statute. Answers to the many questions of ambiguity will be there in the statute itself. Every statute starts with the long title, it gives the description of the object of that Act. The long title is used by the court to interpret certain provisions of the statute.
It helps in removing the ambiguity and confusion of the act and not in giving conclusive aid in interpreting the provisions of the statute. The long title of the Act is relied upon as a guide to decide the scope of the Act. Usually, the short title is used for the purpose of referring and identification of any Act.
This is one of the important part of the statute but its role in interpretation is very minimum. It shall come into force on the first day of January The main aim and objective of the act is found in the preamble of the statute. All the Acts starts with the preamble, stating the reasons behind the enactment of the act and the main objective of the act. The court held that even though the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting clause of a statute, it can be treated as a key for the interpretation of the statute.
Heading gives the key to the interpretation of the clauses under it and helps to know what the intent of the provision. Headings might be treated as the preamble to the provision. The court held that the headings are like a preamble which helps as a key to the mind of the legislature but does not control the substantive section of the enactment.
Marginal notes are inserted at the side of the section and help to understand the effect of the section. This cannot be used for interpretation of the section. It was held that the side notes are not part of the Act and hence marginal notes cannot be referred. Definition clause is used to define all the important terms and to avoid the necessity of frequent repetitions in describing the same subject matter to which the word or expression defined is intended to apply. Definition clause of one particular Act is applied only on the particular Act, not on any other Acts.
Illustrations are the examples given in the statutes for a better understanding of the section. It was held that illustrations are parts of the Section and help to elucidate the principles of the section. Proviso provides examples of specific cases.
These specific examples are given to such cases where general words require special meaning for it. Explanations are added to the section to explain and elaborate on the meaning of the words in the section.
The purpose behind this explanation is to explain, clarify, subtract or include something by elaboration. This forms an important part while interpreting the laws. The schedule forms an important part of the statute. This should be read along with the section. It contains minute details which adds information to the provisions of the enactment.
The expressions of the schedule cannot override the meaning of the provision. Punctuation is one of the minor element of the statue. It should be given importance only when there is proper punctuation used and when there is no doubt about its meaning. When internal aids that are preamble, explanation, illustrations, etc are inadequate for the purpose of interpretation, Judges may take external aids into consideration.
When the words of the Act are clear and unambiguous, the external aids are not required. This includes the original idea of drafting such an Act. The reason behind enacting such laws the cases which influenced the parliamentarians to bring out such laws. It also includes the debates made during passing the laws. And the first-hand hand information collected while making the laws.
The reports made by the various committees during the enactment of the legislation can be referred as it gives more clarity to the words and also helps us to understand the intention behind the act, by this, we can figure out what was the defect or mischief which was present in the previous law.
When parliament passes the enactment based on the committee report and there is any confusion or ambiguity in the terms of the statute that can be easily clarified by referring that committee reports and it helps in the interpretation of the statute very efficiently. Every enactment made by the parliament is based on some or other case, so by referring to the previously giving judgments by the higher courts helps us to analyse and form laws.
0コメント