Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts determine the meaning and legal effect of legislation, resolving how statutory language applies to particular disputes.

Textualism: A method of statutory interpretation that gives primary weight to a law’s enacted text. It makes the enacted words the central constraint on interpretation.
Statute: A written law enacted by a legislature. Statutory interpretation takes enacted legislation, rather than common-law rules, as its object.
Originalism: A constitutional interpretive approach that seeks meaning anchored to the text’s original public meaning. It is often contrasted with statutory methods that give greater weight to contemporary context or purpose.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.: A 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a framework for deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The case made statutory ambiguity a key question in judicial review of agency action.
Judicial restraint: A judicial philosophy favoring limited use of courts’ power to invalidate or reshape government action. It frames concerns that interpretation can become unauthorized judicial policymaking.
Purposivism: A method of statutory interpretation that reads legislation in light of its intended purpose. It directs attention from wording alone to the problem the legislature sought to address.
Legal text: A written instrument whose words carry legal significance. The enacted words provide the principal evidence courts examine.
Living constitutionalism: An approach to constitutional interpretation that allows constitutional meaning to evolve with society. Its account of changing meaning contrasts with the treatment of enacted statutory language.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: A 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling Chevron deference and requiring courts to exercise independent judgment. It changed how federal courts assess agency interpretations of statutes.
Judicial activism: A critical label for judicial decisions seen as departing from restrained application of law. Debates over statutory meaning often turn on whether a court has gone beyond interpretation.

Linked from 16 pages