Introduction

This page, as usual, is only a primer for the field of legislation and statutory interpretation. These notes were taken from the period of January 2025 to around May 2025. Hence, things may change. Hell, things *did* change in the few months I took the course. That being said, your mileage will vary.

The main topics I will cover on this page are (1) the Constitutional basis for power, (2) canons and tools of statutory interpretation, and (3)adminstrative law, pre- and post- Chevron.

Constitutional basis for power

The legislature

Article I Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article I Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

The President

Article III: establishes the Executive (President)

Article I Section 7: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States”

When the president signs the bill, it becomes a law. If the president vetos it, the bill goes back to Congress for re-write or poteinal overide.

here's also this thing called a "pocket veto." See Article 1 Section 7 Clause 2: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.”

The Courts

Artcile III Scetion 1: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Article III Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”

Marbury v. Madison: established the principle of judicial review, which gives the Supreme Court the power to review and declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

Theories of Statutory Interpretation

So you have a shiny new statute-- great! However, we don't understand! Oh no! So what do we do when a statute or part of a statute is ambigious? Apply the canons!

Canons of Statutory Interpretation

Ordinary Meaning

• What the text conveys to a reasonable person in the context of everyday communication. Usually dictionary-based or vibe-based evidence.
• assumes the legislature's intent to use words to convey ordinary meaning to a reasonable reader
• note: if there are two equally plausible interpretations, move on from ordinary meaning to your other tools


• How to use this canon:
  • (i) use dictionary definitions from dictionaries published around the time the statute was written
  • (ii) look for common-law definitions of words (Black's Law Dictionary)
  • (iii) look for common threads/themes across definitions
  • (iv) consider the quality of the dictionary used
• limitations of ordinary meaning interpretation
  • a small protion of congress people use dictionaries as aids while drafting (contrast this with the Court's/the new textualist's increasing reliance on dictionaries)
  • consider the dissonance between what the court thinks congress does vs what congress actually does

case examples

• Bostock v. Clayton County
• facts: Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual “because of such an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Gerald Bostock, a gay man, was terminated from his job for “conduct unbecoming of its employees.”
• Q: Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits against employment discrimination “because of [...] sex” encompass discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation?
• A: yes
• Why: Looking to the ordinary public meaning of each word and phrase comprising that provision, the Court interpreted it to mean that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based, at least in part, on sex. Discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat employees differently because of their sex

• Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific
• Facts: The meaning of the word “interpreter” was at issue. The plaintiff wanted it to encompass the translation of written documents so it could be covered under the Court Interpreters Act, which compensates plaintiffs the cost $$$ of interpreters.The defendant wanted to limit the meaning to people who perform oral translators only.
• Q: Are the costs of translating documents covered under the Court Interpreters Act?
• A:No
• Majority (Alito): The ordinary meaning of the word “interpreter” as defined by dictionaries in 1978 (year of statute enactment) refer to person who translates ORAL communication, not written. Disset (Ginsburg): many dictionaries actually refer to translated documents. The majority's opinion is cherry-picking dictionaries.

• Muscarello v. US
• Facts: A statute imposes harsh sentencing for criminals who "carry" or use firearms during crime or in relation to it. Defendant argues that the word “carry” is ambiguous, and does not apply to him cause firearm was in the glove box of his car, not on his person. The state argues that "carrying" a firearm encompasses carrying it in your car.
• Q: Does "carry" apply to the defendant, even if the gun was not on his person?

If ordinary meaning does not clear up the issue... move on to.....

The Semantic Toolbox!

Expressio Unius

• Enumeration of specific items implies exclusion of all others
• examples:
  • “This statute applies to warehouses, coal mines, and tin mines”
  • =Assume that copper mines are excluded!
  • “forbids the unlawful sale of oat milk, soy milk, and almond milk,”
  • =we can assume the legislature was intentional in omitting the mention of ”traditional cow milk”

Ejusdem Generis

• Enumeration of items with open ending (ie “Or any other ___”)
• Item must share common trait with other items in list
• Note: this is a narrowing statute (If you're trying to extend the statute to a questionable item, this is not the statute for you!)
• Examples
  • (i) “This statute applies to coal mines, tin mines, or any other type of mine”
    • Though it's not enumerated, prob applies to copper mines!
  • (ii) “This statute applies to cars, trucks, and other motor-powered vehicles.”
    • Cars and trucks are land-based, so we can assume that motor-powered vehicles don't refer to airplanes

Noscitur a sociis

• ~associated-words canon: words take on meaning by surrounding words in sentence or paragraph
• Look for a common theme!
• Ex: “I love my dog” v “I love guacamole”
• Love has different meanings in both of these sentences! Context by surrounding words!

And/Or

• “And” = conjunctive list (every condition in list must be satisfied)
• “Or” = disjunctive list (usually) (satisfying condition is sufficient)
• Example
• To qualify for a 711 license, you must (a) be enrolled in an accredited law school and (b) have earned at least half the number of credits necessary for your degree.
• (a) and (b) must both be satisfied

Last antecedent rule (and the series qualifer rule)

• a qualifying clause should be understood to refer only to the immediately preceding words or phrases
• We’re looking for relative clauses, which act as a modifier to one particular noun
• Examples
• I will only eat apples or bananas *grown in my garden*.
• Bananas = grown in the garden. Apples =/= grown in garden.
• I will only accept printed materials or electronic materials *submitted by a clerk*.
• Printed materials =/= submitted to the clerk. Electronic materials = submitted to clerk
• How do you counteract this rule? The series qualifer rule
• basically, argue the oppisite: the last clause modifies every item in the list

The golden rule against absurdity