Canons of construction, that is. The Concurring Opinions blog reports on a recent Supreme Court argument that focused entirely on the meaning of the words "any other law enforcement officer" in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Those words come at the end of a list -- and whenever there is a list in a statute or regulation, it raises potential questions of statutory interpretation.
When the Supreme Court issues its decision, we'll find out if the Justices relied on such arcane doctrines as ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis. In the meantime, read more at Concurring Opinions -- or POFP's past column about statutory interpretation (in the context of environmental law), here.
4 comments:
Adam: I wouldn't bank on the Supreme Court's having anything sensible to say about canons of construction. After all, in Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (2003), the court referred to the "grammatical" rule of the last antecedent. One thing it isn't is a rule of grammar, as I explain in this article. Ken
Well put! Thanks for the link to your article, it's a great read.
replica bags china luxury replica bags replica designer bags
Visit Website see Discover More Here Dolabuy Hermes more info here Read Full Report
Post a Comment