Substantive Cannons and Rules Flashcards
If some aspects or applications of a statute are unconsitutional, courts will face questions about the separability of other aspects or applications of the statutes
- where possible though, courts often tru ro interpret statures so that the statures are not even partially
unconstitutional
- established practice of interpreting statutes to avoid constitutional difficulties
The traditional Saving Cannon
tells courts to perfer readings of a statute that preserve the statute’s constitutionality over readings that would ale the statute unconstitutional ( in part or whole)
Avoiding constitutional doubts cannon
tells courts to try to read statutes so as to avoid even serious questions about their constitutionality
The cannon of constitutional avoidance comes into play when
- after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to be suseptible of more than one construction
- In the absence of more than one plausible construction, the cannon simply has no application
2 views on how the savings cannon should work when prevailing understandings of Constitution have changed between the time a statute was enacted and the time it is being interpreted
Should courts apply the saving canon with refrence to understandings of the constitution as they stood at the time of enactment, as they stand at the time of interpretation
The cannon that favors avoiding constitutional doubts applies no matter how
courts would end up answering the constitutional questions that the canon encourages them to avoid
Now that the cannon that favors avoiding constitutional doubts exists, it does not leave much independent room for the
traditional savings clause
If one reading of a statute would raise serious questions about whether the statute is constitutional and another plausible reading of the statute would not, the cannon that favors avoiding constitutional doubts encourages the courts to
adopt the reading that easily preserves the statute’s constitutionality
- If the courts do so they will not have the oppertunity to apply the saving cannon
Justification of the Traditional Saving Doctrine v. The Cannon That Avoids Constitutional Doubts
It is easier to justify the traditional savings cannon
Whatever the justifications for the cannon that favors avoiding constitutional doubts, the supreme court has said that
statutes should be interpreted to avoid “serious” constitutional doubts… not to eliminate all possible contentions that the statute “might” be constitutional
Issue Specific cannons
AKA
“clear statement rules”
Fouses on a particular policy issue, and tells courts to handle that issue in a certain way unless there are sufficiently clear instructions that the enacting legislature meant to handle it differently
2 examples of cannons that are clear statement rules
- presumption against extraterritoriality
- presumption against retroactivity
Implied Limitation rules
- avoids applications of otherwise unambiguous statutes that would intrude on sensitive domains in a way that Congress is unlikely to have intended had it considered the matter
- ensures that Congress does not, by broad or general language, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or without due deliberation
Descriptive principle to a implied limitation rule
when the rule purports to identify policies that legislators ordinarily accept and that generally worded statutes notmally are not intended to override
Normative principle to a implied limitation rule
they are designed in part to push the law in the direction of good policy
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
State courts do not have to use the same cannons to interpret state statutes that the US Supreme Ct uses to interpret federal statutes, as…
the proper interpretation of state statutes is a matter of state law, and different states can take different approaches to statutory interpretation
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
Even if a legislature enacts a statute that purports to regulate “all” transactions of a certain sort and that does not have any explicit geographic limitations, the states court…
will not necessarily apply the statute to transactions that take place outside the state
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
rather than assuming that each of their state’s statutes defines its own geographical reach and that any geographic limitation on the statute’s applicability need to be found in the statute itself, the state courts are likely to determine the typical statute’s applicaibility according to
choice-of-law doctrines that operate outside the statute
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
If a particular statute enacted by the state legislature provides special instructions on this topic, or otherwise implies that the states courts should not use the states normal choice-of-law doctrines identify the cases for which the statute supplies rules of decision, the the state courts are…
bound to do what their state legislature has told them to do (within constitutional limits)
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
State courts appear to apply…
a rebuttable presumption that eth typical statute enacted by their state legislature does not give instructions to apply the statute over the normal coice of law doctrine
The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
How courts are suppose to interpret federal statutes
cts are suppose to interpret federal statures against the backdrop of a general presumption against extrarritoriality, ehich could only be overcome by clear evience that Congress has specifically intended a particular statute to operate exraterritorily
The Presumption Agaisnt Retroactivity
- cts often read…
temporal limitations into seemingly general statutory language so that statutes do not operate “retroactivity”
The Presumption Agaisnt Retroactivity
Ex Post Facto Laws relevence
- refers to penal statutes
- it penelizes someone although when the crime happened the penelty was not there
- A reason for having a presumption agaisnt retroactivity
The Presumption Agaisnt Retroactivity
What is needed to impose a statute retroactively?
clear evidence of intent
The Presumption Agaisnt Retroactivity
advocates of stare decisis say that when the Supreme Court has settled on a particular interpretation of a statute, changes in that interpretation usuall should
not be made retroactive, and instead should be purely prospective
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
2 points on titles
- Titles should not control the meaning
- The title may be consulted as a guide when there is doubt or obscurity in the body
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
When language is plain and unambiguous
- it must be given effect
- not when literal interpretation would lead to absurd or mischievous consequences or thwart manifest purpose
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
Words and phrases which have recieved judicial construction before enactment
- are to be understood according to that construction
- Not if the statute clearly requires them to have a different meaning
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
After enactment, judicial decision upon interpretation of particular terms and phrases
- controls
- practical construction by executive officers is strong evidence of true meaning
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
technical terms/words of art
- words are to be taken in ordinary meaning unless they are technical terms or words of art
- popular words may bear a technical meaning and technical words may have a popular signification, and they should be so construed as to agree with evident intention or to make the statute operative
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
every word and clause
- must be given effect
- if inadvertently inserted or if repugnant to the rest of the statute, they may be rejected as surplusage
Cannons of Construction - conflicts?
The same language used repeatedly in the same connection
- is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout the statute
- This presumption will be disregarded where it is necessary to assign different meanings to make the statute consistant
Various goals of statutory interpretation
- facilitating successful communication
- enabling the citizenry to have adequate notice of the laws content and
- keeping the interpretive process from consuming too many resources
Presumption against retroactivity kicks in
when applying a statutory provision in a particular case would attach new legal consequences to events completed before the provisions enactment
- purely prospectove - not during or before enactment
