Leg/Reg

What would the legislature have SPECIFICALLY INTENDED if confronted with the particular interpretive question before the court.

Did legislature have this specific thing in mind? (as opposed to what the goal is)

What was the legislature's broad over purpose in passing the statute?

Interpreters should strive to discern how reasonable people would understand the semantic import or usage fo the precise statutory language that Congress adopted.

Text of the statute

1) Ordinary meaning
2) Structure
3) Canons of construction
4) Language of Related Statutes

Default rule.

Means to construe a statute using its plain/ordinary meaning.

When there is evidence that legislature intended to use the term in a special way.

1) Dictionaries
2) Specialized/Technical meanings (3 cases)
3) Judicial Corrections

1) Nix v. Hedden
2) Moskal
3) Smith v. US

Ordinary v. Specialized meaning.

Must consider who the legislature is addressing. Ordinary or specialist.

If ordinary --> read with the mind of ordinary

If specialized --> read with mind of a specialist.

Falsely made

Majority: If a legal term, use ordinary meaning unless evidence you should give it a legal meaning.

Dissent: Objects to OM when there is a clear legal definition that recognizes term in dispute.

"Use" of firearm

Maj: "use" includes all uses of firearm, even though it wasn't in the bang bang sense.

Dis: Ct. doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between how a word CAN be used and how it is ORDINARILY used.

not only the words around it, but you need a community of people to agree with what something means

BUT you need to explain what community.

"This would seem to be directed towards the ____ community because _____"

Every judge/ct agree that no matter how clear statute is, there are exceptions.

When Cong. obvs. said what they meant to say, but on reflection, realized they made an obvs. mistake and failed to consider certain consequences.

Statute: Obstructing delivery of mail.

Mailman indicted for murder arrested by sherrif.

Sheriff arrested for obstructing delivery of mail.

That's pretty dumb.

Society's values are more important than slowing delivery of mail.

Obvious typo or clerical error.

Wasn't written properly.

IE: Feb 29th

How does the sentence fit together.

Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refers solely to the last antecedent.

No planting apples, oranges, or tomatoes [,] in the garden.

Insertion of comma makes sure all THREE apply to the garden.

1) Textual/Symantec Canons
2) Substantive Canons

1) Expressio Unius
2) Noscitur a Sociis
3) Enusdem Generis
4) Presumption of Consistent Usage
5) Presumption Against Surplusage

The expression of one thing implies exclusion of others.

If statute says x, y, z, it impliedly excludes 1 and 2.

When no "catch-all" provision.

A word known by its associates.

Meaning of words that are placed together in a statute should be determined in light of the words with which they are associated.

Basically using context clues.

When general words follow/precede a list of more specific words, the meaning of the general words is construed to include only things of the same kind, class, character, or nature as those things that are specifically enumerated.

When list of terms followed by a catch all

IE: x, y, and z, any other vehicle.

Rebuttable presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.

Only overcome when Congress indicates otherwise

Statutes should be construed so that every term and provision is meaningful - if it is possible to do so.

Interpretations that render certain statutory language superfluous are disfavored.

1) Canon of Constitutional Avoidance
2) Rule of Lenity

If a statute could be construed either to violate the constitution, or not violate - you obviously construe so as to not violate the constitution.

Ambiguous criminal statutes should be construed in favor of the defendant.

Immediately think of:

1) Expressio Unius
2) Noscitur a Sociis
3) Ejusdem Generis

THEN determine whether you should apply one and explain why.

THEN reason how it gets to a particular answer.

Can illuminate meaning of a word if used in same way.

Assuming that whole body of law produced by Congress is consistent.

MAIN 3:
1) Operative Language of Statute
2) Mischief Rule
3) Leg. History

BONUS 3:
4) Title
5) Preamble or Policy Clauses
6) Social/Political/Econ/Cultural

IE: "No vehicles in the park..."

NOT: "For the sake of public safety, we hereby enact..."

Ask what was the problem that the act was meant to address and what remedy did the legislature choose to address.

MIGHT find in LH

Can usually be found in federal statute, make sure it's relevant and reliable.

1) Committee Reports
2) Explanatory Statements made by sponsors and floor manages

BONUS but not lead-ins:

Everything else.

Isn't really important, just some evidence.

Not very important, but make sure it doesn't run contrary to operative language.

Rarely see this, but if there, make argument at the end.

Big issue in Holy Trinity. (This is a Christian Nation)

1) Operative Language
2) Mischief Rule
3) LH

4-6 are extra support for the end.

The more specific statute trumps the more general.

The later enacted trumps earlier.

Reflects will of more active congress

Admin agencies are subordinate to the three gov't branches and staffed by experts to do a better job than Congress in regulating areas in question.

1) Issue legally binding rules
2) Power to issue decisions in adjudicatory disputes in line with procedure

IN ORDER:
1) Constitution
2) Federal Statutes (APA)
3) Rules that Agencies issue themselves to self-govern

They are departments and heads of which make up presidential cabinets.

Exist outside exec. branch and are insulated from the control of the President. Headed by multi-member groups, simple maj needed.

Started by gov't to do something but aren't subject to the APA, just constitution. (ex: Amtrak)

APA (Guide to running an agency)
Organic Act (act that creates agency)
Statutory Mandate (Marching orders about what agencies can do, how they can do it)

1) There must be an IP in the statute that limits the authority of the AA so that it's not wholesale giving its legislative power.

Can be broad or vague, but that's okay. Just has to be somewhat tailored.

There must be an Intelligible Principle in the statute that limits the authority of the Administrative Agency so that its not wholesale giving it legislative power

554, 556, and 557 of the APA

The agency process for issuing an order, a final disposition of an agency in a matter other than rulemaking, but including licensing.

Say exactly: "Required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing"

OR

"Explicitly refer to 554 of the APA"

Then it's formal adjudication

Go to Chevron Doctrine to determine whether the agency interpreted the statute correctly to decide if formal adjudications are required.

Could be scrivener's error.

Encompasses all adjudications not subject to 554

YES

Congress creates an agency, then delegates power to them to deal with a specific problem.

(Grounded in separation of powers. Limit on Congress's authority to delegate)

The whole or part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect (APA)

Provisions identifying the types of persons/entities subject to the rule or qualifying for the benefit of the rule.

Can't be retroactive unless statute says so.

Involves trial type proceedings governed by 556, 557

Doesn't state which must follow these proceedings.

553 governs that.

To inform the agency so the rules it adopts are accurate and fair as possible

To involve the public so it has a sense or participation in the rules that may affect it.

Agency must give notice to the public of intended rulemarking

1) Published in federal register
2) Address what they are trying to do and way
3) If they have date being used as basis for rule, MUST be included to give other parties a MEANINGFUL opportunity to comment

Agency must provide an opportunity for written COMMENT under 553(c)

Public can comment on proposed rule... online.

in RULE, agency must provide a "concise and general statement of their basis and purpose" in which they respond to comments.

Generally rules go into effect 30 days after publication

If the final rule is a logical outgrowth of the original proposed changes, further notice and comment on changes to proposed rule aren't necessary.

When parties don't like what agencies have done, they take it to court.

1) Didn't follow procedure
2) Substance is incorrect

1) Rulemaking or Adjudication (matter of fact finding)
2) Procedure or substance
3) Legal interpretations or fact-finding (Chevron --> interpretation of enabling statute OR Fact-finding arbitrary and capricious)

1) No deference (Agency is wrong, Court is taking over)
2) Full deference (Agency is right --> STFU and stop complaining)
3) Partial Deference (Sort of right, we will sort of defer to them)

1) Procedural requirements of APA, other stats, Constitution
2) Substantive Review of Agency Action

1) Is the adjudication/rulemaking consistent with statutory mandate (apply Chevron)
2) Was the Adjudication/Rulemaking consistent with the result of reasoned decision making? (apply state farm)

Chevron: Engage in stat. interpretation

State Farm: Cheks to make sure what the Agency did wasn't arbitrary or capricious.

Chevron Two Step

1) Has Congress spoken to the direct question at issue.

Analyze whether the power to make that decision/rule included in statute (SI)

If yes --> Court gives effect to that interp, regardless of agency action. (Stand or overturn)

If no (stat is silent/ambig) --> Step 2

2) Is the agencies interpretation of statute reasonable/permissible?

If yes --> Cts will uphold Agency's resolution of the ambiguous language. (Ct doesn't have to agree... just reasonable/permissible)

Has Congress spoken to direct question at issue?

Stat. interp. --> was power to make decision/rule included in statute.

Yes --> Court will rule.
Stat is silent/ambig --> Go to step 2

If yes --> Cts uphold the Agency's resolution of ambiguous languge, whether or not they agree.

(DIFFERENCE in Chevron)

What the agency itself claimed were the reasons for its actions?

State Farm: Arbitrary and Capricious standard

1) Did the agency rely on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider?
2) Did Agency entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the problem?
3) Did Agency's explanation run counter to evidence?
4) Was adjudication/rulemaking so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view/expertise?

Substantial evidence review

Was the evidence sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to reach the same conclusion that the Agency did?

You must provide the information you relied on (for notice), address suggested alternatives, and address comments.