“Appellate judges spend virtually every working hour speaking, listening to, reading, or writing English prose. Statutes are written in English prose, and interpretation is not a technical exercise to be carried out by mechanically applying a set of arcane rules,” Alito wrote. “Canons of interpretation can help in figuring out the meaning of troublesome statutory language, but if they are treated like rigid rules, they can lead us astray.”
In a footnote in her opinion, Sotomayor said she agreed with Alito that canons are not inflexible rules and their usefulness depends on the particular statutory text and context.
“To the extent he suggests that such canons have no role to play in statutory interpretation, or that resolving difficult interpretive questions is a simple matter of applying the ‘common understanding’ of those ‘familiar with the English language,’ we disagree,” she wrote. “Courts should approach these interpretive problems methodically, using traditional tools of statutory interpretation, in order to confirm their assumptions about the “common understanding” of words.”
Also of note: The Commission on Judicial Performance has released its 2020 Annual Report, which details the commission’s activities and statistics from that year. The Annual Report is available on the commission’s website at https://cjp.ca.gov. Report here (see pp. 26-36).
Posts
