Interpreting Law: Courts' Power And Limits

The interpretation of law is a critical aspect of the judicial process, and it involves courts ascertaining the meaning and application of legislation in specific cases. While courts interpret laws, they are not bound by previous interpretations in the absence of case law. This means that while each case builds on the body of law within a given jurisdiction, known as common law, judges are not constrained by previous interpretations of similar statutes. This freedom allows for a case-by-case approach, where the specific context of a case is considered, and the totality of the language is examined to guide rulings. However, in practice, courts often refer to previous interpretations and rules of interpretation, such as the mischief rule, the literal rule, and the golden rule, to maintain consistency and predictability in the law.

The role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the law

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and it plays a crucial role in interpreting the law. The Court's decisions have far-reaching implications for society, and it acts as the final arbiter of justice and the guardian of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's interpretive work falls into two main categories: statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation.

Statutory interpretation involves the Supreme Court authoritatively defining ambiguous words and phrases in federal laws and applying them to specific cases. This process is necessary when the meaning of a statute is not clear or when there is a conflict between legislation and case law. The Court's interpretation becomes binding on lower courts in future disputes involving similar issues. The rules and conventions of statutory interpretation are similar to those used when interpreting regulations issued by executive branch agencies. Judges use various tools and methods, including traditional canons of interpretation, legislative history, and purpose, to ascertain the meaning of statutes.

Constitutional interpretation, on the other hand, involves interpreting the meaning of constitutional passages. The Supreme Court has the power to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution. After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that most of the Bill of Rights' provisions applied to the states as well, giving it the final say over when a right is constitutionally protected. The Court's interpretations of the Constitution ensure that each branch of the government recognises its own limits.

The Supreme Court's approach to interpretation has been characterised as conservative originalism, which has had significant societal implications, including the loss of bodily autonomy for women and the increased proliferation of guns. Critics argue that justices use interpretive methods like originalism, textualism, and intentionalism to support their own policy preferences. However, the absence of broad legal directives does not diminish the authority of the Court's interpretive statements, which operate as a common law of methods, elucidating specific norms and facilitating consensus over time.

The use of precedents and stare decisis

The concept of stare decisis, which means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided" in Latin, is a foundational principle in the American legal system. It dictates that courts and judges should respect "precedent", or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. This respect for precedents brings consistency to the law and makes its interpretation more predictable.

Stare decisis can be further divided into horizontal and vertical components. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals follows the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis. Vertical stare decisis, on the other hand, obligates lower courts to strictly adhere to the rulings of higher or appellate courts within the same jurisdiction, as they have persuasive authority. For instance, an appellate court must abide by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the federal court of last resort with binding authority. Vertical stare decisis is deeply entrenched in the American legal system and is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme".

While stare decisis provides consistency and predictability, critics argue that it can impede the general advancement of the law. As society and its beliefs evolve, the doctrine may need to adapt to reflect changing cultural, social, economic, and other conditions. This is particularly relevant when considering the impact of new technologies or demographic shifts on the interpretation of prior decisions.

In addition to stare decisis, the concept of methodological precedent, or the idea that there is a set of norms for interpreting legal texts, has been proposed. This approach suggests that a series of smaller decisions converge to form a common law of methods, elucidating specific norms and facilitating consensus. However, critics argue that this could tie the hands of future courts too tightly.

The interpretation of the US Constitution

The US Constitution is the oldest federal constitution in existence and outlines the three branches of the federal government, their jurisdictions, and the basic rights of US citizens. The interpretation of the US Constitution is a complex and evolving process, with the Supreme Court playing a pivotal role in interpreting and applying it. This process of interpretation is known as "constitutional interpretation".

Early in US history, the Supreme Court established its authority to review the constitutionality of federal and state governmental actions through judicial review. The Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 marked a significant milestone in this regard. Over time, the Court has developed and employed various methods of interpretation, including textualism, original meaning, judicial precedent, pragmatism, moral reasoning, national identity, structuralism, and historical practices.

Textualism involves a close reading of the Constitution's text, seeking to understand the drafters' original intent and the plain meaning of the words used. Original meaning focuses on interpreting the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted, considering the historical context and the intentions of those who ratified it. Judicial precedent, on the other hand, relies on previous Court decisions to guide current interpretations, ensuring consistency and stability in the law.

Pragmatism takes into account practical considerations and the potential consequences of different interpretations. Moral reasoning appeals to ethical principles and values, often invoking natural law or social contract theory. National identity interprets the Constitution in a way that promotes a unified national ethos, while structuralism focuses on the structure and organization of the government outlined in the Constitution. Historical practices consider the historical context and how previous generations interpreted the Constitution.

It is important to note that the interpretation of the US Constitution is not a static process. The Supreme Court's interpretations can evolve over time, adapting to changing societal norms, values, and understandings. This evolution is a key aspect of constitutional interpretation, allowing the document to remain relevant and responsive to the needs of a dynamic society.

The role of the court in common law

Common law is a body of law based on court decisions rather than codes or statutes. It is deeply rooted in the principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided". In other words, courts and judges need to follow past decisions and rulings, or case law, when dealing with similar cases.

In common law systems, judges are empowered to resolve legal issues and establish new precedents in cases where there is no clear precedent or legislative guidance. This is known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law. Common law is flexible and adaptable to unforeseen situations, as it does not require lawmakers to pass changes in statutes and codes. Higher courts can overrule prior decisions as "bad law" without waiting for lawmakers to do so.

To determine the meaning of a statute, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. They may also consider the statutory context of a case, looking at the totality of the language to better understand key words and phrases. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to both legislation enacted by the legislature and delegated legislation, such as administrative agency regulations.

The interpretation of statutes

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. In many cases, there is ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. Judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose.

In Roman and civil law, a statute (or code) guides the magistrate, but there is no judicial precedent. In England, Parliament historically failed to enact a comprehensive code of legislation, which is why it was left to the courts to develop the common law. The courts' decisions and interpretations of statutes would become binding on later courts. The principal aim of the court must be to carry out the "intention of Parliament". To this end, the English courts developed three main rules to assist them in interpreting statutes: the mischief rule, the literal rule, and the golden rule.

The interpretation of a particular statute depends upon the degree of creativity applied by the judges or the court in the reading of it, employed to achieve some stated end. While some have argued for a simple set of rules to interpret statutes, others, such as Francis Bennion, argue that there are "a thousand and one interpretative criteria".

In the United States, the Supreme Court's directions about how to interpret legal texts already have a soft and salutary authoritative force. However, there is no methodological stare decisis, meaning that the Supreme Court's decision to use purposivism or textualism to interpret a legal text in one case is not binding in future cases. Instead, the Supreme Court’s back-and-forth about interpretation operates as a common law of methods, where individual cases elucidate specific norms and facilitate consensus.

Frequently asked questions