Final Exam Prep

Question 1

Plain Meaning Rule

Answer 1

Designates that the words in a statute are given their plain or ordinary meaning. The plain or ordinary meaning of a word is found through its usual, natural, or ordinary use, and this canon is used in the absence of a technical or peculiar meaning of law.

Question 2

Technical Meaning

Answer 2

Words have a technical meaning when they are (1) surrounded by technical words and/or (2) the law is directed at a technical audience

Question 3

Reddendo Singula Singulis

Answer 3

When a sentence contains several antecedents and several consequents, they are to be read distributively

Question 4

Rule of Last Antecedent

Answer 4

When a modifier is set off from a series of antecedents by a comma, the modifier should be interpreted to apply to all of the antecedents. If the modifier is not set off by a comma, it applies to the immediately preceding antecedent

Question 5

Textualism

Answer 5

Textualism relies on the text of the statute and other intrinsic sources to discern meaning. Textualists believe a judge’s role is to be faithful to the constitution by protecting the separation of powers through focusing on intrinsic sources without looking beyond the text for meaning. Textualists examine the fewest sources and take on a linear model by beginning with the ordinary meaning of the text and moving on to other sources for meaning only when ambiguity, absurdity, or scrivener’s error is found.

Question 6

Purposivism

Answer 6

Purposivism focuses on the reason the legislature enacted the statute. A purposivist looks at the language of the statute as well as extrinsic sources to find the legislature’s general intent. When using a purposivist approach, one looks for the broad goals of the statute, what problem the legislature was looking to address, and which meaning of the language will most align with the discovered purpose. Purposivists believe an act only makes sense in light of its purpose, and they will look beyond the text for that purpose regardless of whether ambiguity, absurdity, or scrivener’s error exists. It offers flexibility to change meaning with societal advances, but it comes with controversy with finding an unexpressed purpose. Different interpreters may have different views on what the unexpressed purpose may be, which can lead to competing interpretations of the language.

Question 7

Intentionalism

Answer 7

Intentionalism focuses on the enacting legislature’s intent to resolve a specific issue. Intentionalists start with the text of the statute, then move on to examine extrinsic sources for meaning. They look to other sources regardless of whether ambiguity, absurdity, or scrivener’s error is present. If other sources reveal the legislature did not intend for the text to have its ordinary meaning, they will reject the ordinary meaning in order to further the specific intent. Intentionalists believe that the judicial role is to be faithful agents of the legislature to ensure policy is being upheld. Intentionalism has its weakness as does any other theory of interpretation, specifically there is the struggle of discerning whether the enacting legislature all shared the same intent. However, intentionalists believe that private motives and different views do not eliminate the possibility of a centralized intent.

Question 8

Ambiguity

Answer 8

Exists when there are at least two equally plausible meanings of a word.

Question 9

Absurdity

Answer 9

(Golden Rule Exception to Plain Meaning Canon) Absurdity exists when the meaning leads to an absurd result. An absurd result occurs when an outcome is so contrary to perceived social values that Congress could not have intended it. Absurdity may be specific, which means the absurdity only occurs in specific situations, or it can be general, which means it is absurd regardless of the situation. When the plain meaning leads to an absurd result, then the court must go beyond the plain meaning to see if the other sources demonstrate that the absurd but plain meaning was intended.

Question 10

Scrivener’s Error

Answer 10

An obvious clerical error or typo in the legislature’s drafting or amending of the statute. Plain Meaning Rule permits judges to “correct” error and exception is limited.

Question 11

In Pari Materia

Answer 11

Statutory language should be looked at within the entire textual context, not in isolation.
Whole Act Rule: words must be construed in the context of the act and statute as a whole
Whole Code Rule: new statutes should be interpreted harmoniously with existing statutes concerning the same subject

Question 12

Identical Words Presumption

Answer 12

When a word is used in another part of the same act, the legislature intended the word to have the same meaning in both places

Question 13

Noscitur a Sociis

Answer 13

A word placed with others in a statute should be determined in light of those which they are associated; when a word has a variety of meanings, its meaning in a statute may be determined from the words associated with it

Question 14

Ejusdem Generis

Answer 14

A subset of Noscitur a Sociis; When a general catchall is used, it includes only things that are similar in nature to the specific words it is unifiying

Question 15

Rule Against Surplusage

Answer 15

Statute ought, upon the whole, be construed so that no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant. Every word must be given meaning, and different words in the same statute (particularly those in a list) cannot mean precisely the same thing

Question 16

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

Answer 16

When the legislature expressed one thing and not another, the assumption is that the other was intentionally not included

Question 17

Heydon’s Case and the Mischief Rule

Answer 17

The language in a statute should be construed in a way that suppresses the mischief the legislature was intending to remedy and advances their prescribed remedy.
Steps: Identify the mischief the legislature sought to remedy by enacting the statute, determine the remedy selected by the legislature to fix the identified problem, construe the act in a way that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy

Question 18

Rule of Lenity

Answer 18

The Rule of Lenity directs a judge to strictly interpret penal statutes, which impose a fine or imprisonment, in a way that resolves ambiguities in favor of the defendant. Thus, if there are two plausible meanings of a statute the court should use the meaning that is most beneficial to the defendant.

Question 19

Skidmore Intepretation

Answer 19

Weight given to agency’s interpretation depends on all factors which give it power to persuade if it lacks power to control
Factors of persuasion includes: consistency over time, thoroughness of the agency’s consideration, and soundness of the agency’s reasoning

Question 20

Chevron Two-Step

Answer 20

(1) Has Congress directly spoken to the precise question at issue? - no deference to agency at this step and the court uses tools of statutory construction to determine if there is ambiguity or gap
(2) If Congress has not spoken, then a court must accept any “reasonable” agency interpretation - even if the court believes another meaning would be better

Question 21

Chevron Step Zero

Answer 21

Does the agency interpret statutory language in an act and use a process that involves a force of law aka does the agency have authority to issue binding rules?

Question 22

Auer Deference

Answer 22

Agency is entitled to deference unless its interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation

Question 23

Constitutional Avoidance Rule

Answer 23

Allows courts to reject the ordinary meaning when there are two reasonable interpretations, one in which raises a constitutional issue and one which does not. The statute should be interpreted in a way that does not raise a constitutional issue

Question 24

Throwaway paragraph

Answer 24

The statute is constitutionally valid. There is no case law that interprets ____ and there are no definition sections relating to the statute that give meaning to the language at issue. Additionally, the legislature has not passed a statute directing the court to use a specific statutory interpretation approach.