Plain meaning rule

Last updated

The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule".

Contents

The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. The plain meaning rule is the mechanism that prevents courts from taking sides in legislative or political issues. [2] Additionally, it is the mechanism that underlies textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism.

Meaning

To avoid ambiguity, legislatures often include "definitions" sections within a statute, which explicitly define the most important terms used in that statute. [3] 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.

Larry Solum, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, expands on this premise:

Some laws are meant for all citizens (e.g., criminal statutes) and some are meant only for specialists (e.g., some sections of the tax code). A text that means one thing in a legal context, might mean something else if it were in a technical manual or a novel. So the plain meaning of a legal text is something like the meaning that would be understood by competent speakers of the natural language in which the text was written who are within the intended readership of the text and who understand that the text is a legal text of a certain type. [4]

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 US 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):

I have been willing, in the case of civil statutes, to acknowledge a doctrine of "scrivener's error" that permits a court to give an unusual (though not unheard-of) meaning to a word which, if given its normal meaning, would produce an absurd and arguably unconstitutional result.

In the United Kingdom, this is referred to as the golden rule.

Reasons favoured

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 sources.

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.

Criticism

This is the oldest of the rules of construction 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.

Doctrine of absurdity

In law, strictly literal interpretations of statutes can lead to seemingly absurd results. The doctrine of absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings. Under the absurdity doctrine, American courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. [5] [6] [7] It is contrasted with literalism. [8]

The common sense of man approves the judgment mentioned by Pufendorf [sic. Puffendorf], that the Bolognian law which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity", did not extend to the surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same common sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of 1st Edward II, which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be guilty of a felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the prison is on fire – "for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be burnt". [9]

English law history

An explanation of the rule was given in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844; 11 Cl&Fin 85). "The only rule for construction of Acts of Parliament 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."

However, use of the literal rule may defeat the intention of Parliament. For instance, in the case of Whiteley v. Chappel, [10] 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.

Other uses

The "plain meaning rule" has sometimes been applied to the interpretation of contracts, particularly in conjunction with the parol evidence rule. Such a use is controversial. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law and subordinate legislation.

In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts such interpretation only to the exact wording of the law.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i> Australian case

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

An absurdity is a thing that is extremely unreasonable, so as to be foolish or not taken seriously, or the state of being so. "Absurd" is an adjective used to describe an absurdity, e.g., "Tyler and the boys laughed at the absurdity of the situation." It derives from the Latin absurdum meaning "out of tune", hence irrational. The Latin surdus means "deaf", implying stupidity. Absurdity is contrasted with seriousness in reasoning. In general usage, absurdity may be synonymous with ridiculousness and nonsense. In specialized usage, absurdity is related to extremes in bad reasoning or pointlessness in reasoning; ridiculousness is related to extremes of incongruous juxtaposition, laughter, and ridicule; and nonsense is related to a lack of meaningfulness. Absurdism is a concept in philosophy related to the notion of absurdity.

Statutory interpretation is defined as the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity 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 both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently used as a synonym for originalism; while original intent is indeed one theory in the originalist family, it has some salient differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to distinguish original intent as much as legal realists do.

Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), was a 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. Thus, consensual extramarital sex falls within the definition of "immoral sex."

The mischief rule is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts, the other two being the "plain meaning rule" and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to help the court rule in a manner which will "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy".

The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is obnoxious to principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the narrower approach and the wider approach.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 is an Interpretation Act of the Parliament of Australia which establishes rules for the interpretation of Australian Acts and other legislation. The Act applies only to Commonwealth legislation, with each state and the self-governing territory having its own legislation.

<i>Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart</i> Leading English case on statutory interpretation

Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

The Four Corners Rule is a legal doctrine that courts use to determine the meaning of a written instrument such as a contract, will, or deed as represented solely by its textual content. The doctrine states that where there is an ambiguity of terms, the Court must rely on the written instrument solely and cannot consider extraneous evidence.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

Judicial interpretation refers to how the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.

Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440 (1989), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Federal Advisory Committee Act as well as Article II of the United States Constitution.

<i>Tasmania v Commonwealth</i>

Tasmania v Commonwealth, is a landmark decision of the High Court of Australia in 1904. The case concerned a claim by Tasmanian for customs tariffs collected in Victoria during the period between Federation and the commencement of the Commonwealth Customs Tariff. Significantly, the High Court established that the Australian Constitution should interpreted consistently with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.

Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is a new academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts. Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues.

The rule of lenity, also called the rule of strict construction, is a principle of criminal statutory interpretation that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in the manner that is most favorable to the defendant. The rule has a long history in the law and has been an important element of the relationship between the courts and the legislature, but its role in modern jurisprudence is less clear.

<i>DB v The Minister for Health</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DB v The Minister for Health[2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

References

  1. ↑ "The notion has long prevailed that three different rules or approaches may be employed in ascertaining the meaning of a statute. First, there is said to be the "purpose" approach or "mischief rule"....Then there is said to be the "literal" approach or "plain meaning" rule....Finally there is what is called the "golden rule".... Source: Elmer Driedger, Construction of Statutes. Toronto: Butterworths, 1983, p. 1.
  2. ↑ "Plain Meaning Rule Law & Legal Definition". Definitions.uslegal.com. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  3. ↑ See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1531(b) (defining "partial-birth abortion" as comprehended by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003).
  4. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 14 December 2005. Retrieved 20 November 2005.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ↑ The Absurdity Doctrine, Harvard Law Review, John F. Manning, Vol.116, #8, June, 2003, pp. 2387-2486,
  6. ↑ "Delaware Corporate & Commercial Litigation Blog : Highlights & Analysis of Key Decisions from Delaware's Supreme Court & Court of Chancery". Delawarelitigation.com. 29 April 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  7. ↑ Staszewski, Glen (13 April 2006). "Avoiding Absurdity by Glen Staszewski". SSRN   896310 .Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. ↑ Veronica M Dougherty. "Absurdity and the Limits of Literalism: Defining the Absurd Result Principle in Statutory Interpretation". American University Law Review. 44: 127. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  9. ↑ Dougherty, Veronica M. "Absurdity and the Limits of Literalism: Defining the Absurd Result Principle in Statutory Interpretation 44 American University Law Review 1994-1995". American University Law Review. 44: 127. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
  10. ↑ Whiteley v. Chappel (1868; LR 4 QB 147)
  11. ↑ Linzer, Peter (2002). "The Comfort of Certainty: Plain Meaning and the Parole Evidence Rule". Fordham Law Review . 71: 799. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.