Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress

CRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS Web

Order Code 97-589

Statutory Interpretation:General Principles and Recent Trends

Updated March 30, 2006

George CostelloLegislative Attorney

American Law Division

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/index.html

Statutory InterpretationGeneral Principles and Recent Trends

Summary

The Supreme Court has expressed an interest that Congress be able to legislateagainst a background of clear interpretive rules, so that it may know the effect of thelanguage it adopts. This report identifies and describes some of the more importantrules and conventions of interpretation that the Court applies. Because the Court hasrecently placed renewed emphasis on statutory text and somewhat reduced emphasison legislative history and other interpretive sources extrinsic to the text, this reportfocuses primarily on the Courts methodology in construing statutory text. TheCourts recent approaches to reliance on legislative history are also briefly described.

In analyzing a statutes text, the Court is guided by the basic principle that astatute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate parts beinginterpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutorypurpose. The various canons of interpretation and presumptions as to substantiveresults are usually subordinated to interpretations that further a clearly expressedcongressional purpose.

The Court frequently relies on canons of construction to draw inferencesabout the meaning of statutory language. For example, in considering the meaningof particular words and phrases, the Court distinguishes between terms of art thatmay have specialized meanings and other words that are ordinarily given a dictionarydefinition. Other canons direct that all words of a statute be given effect if possible,that a term used more than once in a statute should ordinarily be given the samemeaning throughout, and that specific statutory language ordinarily trumpsconflicting general language. Ordinarily is a necessary caveat, since any of thesecanons gives way if context reveals an evident contrary meaning.

Not infrequently the Court stacks the deck, and subordinates the general,linguistic canons of statutory construction, as well as other interpretive principles, tooverriding presumptions that favor particular substantive results. The Court usuallyrequires a clear statement of congressional intent to negate one of thesepresumptions. A commonly invoked presumption is that Congress does not intendto change judge-made law. Other presumptions disfavor preemption of state law andabrogation of state immunity from suit in federal court. Congress must also be veryclear if retroactive application of a statute or repeal of an existing law is intended.The Court tries to avoid an interpretation that would raise serious doubts about astatutes constitutionality. Other presumptions that are overridden only by clearstatement of congressional intent are also identified and described.

Contents

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

Canons of Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4In General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Ordinary and Specialized Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Terms of art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Ordinary meaning and dictionary definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6And/or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Definite/indefinite article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Shall/may . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Singular/plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

General, Specific, and Associated Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Grammatical Rules, Punctuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Statutory Language Not to be Construed as Mere Surplusage . . . . . . . . . 12Same Phrasing in Same or Related Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Different Phrasings in Same Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Congress Knows How to Say ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Statutory Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16De Minimis Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Overriding Presumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Departure from Common Law or Established Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Displacing State Law, Impinging on State Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Abrogation of States Eleventh Amendment Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Nationwide Application of Federal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Waiver of Sovereign Immunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Non-retroactivity / Effective Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Avoidance of Constitutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Extraterritorial Application Disfavored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Judicial Review of Administrative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Deference to Administrative Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Repeals by Implication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Laws of the same session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Appropriations laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Rule of Lenity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Scienter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Remedial Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Statutes Benefiting Indian Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Miscellany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Titles of Acts or Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Preambles (Whereas Clauses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Findings and Purposes Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Sense of Congress Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Savings Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Notwithstanding Any Other Provision of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Implied Private Right of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Incorporation by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Severability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Deadlines for Administrative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Plain Meaning Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Uses of Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Post-Enactment or Subsequent Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Subsequent legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Reenactment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Acquiescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Isolated statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Signing Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

1 Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 556 (1989).2 61 Fed. Reg. 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996), reprinted in 28 U.S.C. 519. The Order directsagencies to make every reasonable effort to ensure that proposed legislation, asappropriate . . . specifies in clear language (A) whether causes of action arising under thelaw are subject to statutes of limitations; (B) the preemptive effect; (C) the effect on existingFederal law; (D) a clear legal standard for affected conduct; (E) whether arbitration andother forms of dispute resolution are appropriate; (F) whether the provisions of the law areseverable if one or more is held unconstitutional; (G) the retroactive effect, if any; (H) theapplicable burdens of proof; (I) whether private parties are granted a right to sue, and, if so,what relief is available and whether attorneys fees are available; (J) whether state courtshave jurisdiction; (K) whether administrative remedi