The Basics of Interpretation

I was searching for some articles on the canons of construction the other day and came across this nifty work.  It's a very useful primer from the Congressional Research Service (circa 2006) on the canons and presumptions of textual interpretation used, historically and recently, by the Supreme Court.  Aside from actually listing the canons and presumptions, it explains the origins of most of them quite well (and succinctly) and cites at least one modern one case where each has been discussed by the Court. It's about fifty pages, but I've (rather sloppily) copied the Table of Contents below so you can feel free to skip directly to what interests you most.  (If going by the pdf file page number instead of the article page number add five pages to the numbers listed below to find the section you're looking for.)

 

Statutory Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
In General — Statutory Context and Purpose . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . 2

Canons of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .  4

In General . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ordinary and Specialized Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Terms of art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Ordinary meaning and dictionary definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
And/or . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 8
Definite/indefinite article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . 8
Shall/may . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Singular/plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
General, Specific, and Associated Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grammatical Rules, Punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Statutory Language Not to be Construed as “Mere Surplusage” . . 12
Same Phrasing in Same or Related Statutes . . . . . .. .  . . . . . . 13
Different Phrasings in Same Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 14
“Congress Knows How to Say ...” . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 15
Statutory Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
De Minimis Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Overriding Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Departure from Common Law or Established Interpretation . .. . 18
Displacing State Law, Impinging on State Operations . . . . .  . . . 18
Abrogation of States’ Eleventh Amendment Immunity . . . . . 19
Nationwide Application of Federal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 20
Non-retroactivity / Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Avoidance of Constitutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 21
Extraterritorial Application Disfavored . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 22
Judicial Review of Administrative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Deference to Administrative Interpretation . . . . . .  . . . . .. . . 23
Repeals by Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 26
Laws of the same session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 27
Appropriations laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Rule of Lenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 28
Scienter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Remedial Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 29
Statutes Benefiting Indian Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Miscellany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Titles of Acts or Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 31
Preambles (“Whereas Clauses”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 32
Findings and Purposes Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
“Sense of Congress” Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Savings Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . 33
“Notwithstanding Any Other Provision of Law” . . . . . . . . . 35
Implied Private Right of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . 36
Incorporation by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Severability . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 38
Deadlines for Administrative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 39
Plain Meaning Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Uses of Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Post-Enactment or “Subsequent” Legislative History . . . . . . . 44
Subsequent legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Reenactment . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 45
Acquiescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
“Isolated statements” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Signing Statements . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48

 

One more note:  As this was written by Congressional staffers advising Congress about how to draft statutes in ways that make Congressional intent clear, it's not surprising that the content of the article reflects that perspective.  For instance, the section on   Presidential signing statements looks quite unfavorably on their worth.