![handle is hein.crs/cnsocnbrfovw0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Congressional Research Service
Inforring the legislative debate since 1914
Canons of Construction: A Brief Overview
The canons of construction are a set of judicial
presumptions about statutory meaning. The canons are one
of the traditional tools judges use to interpret statutes, along
with the text's ordinary meaning, context, legislative
history, and implementation. Courts may assume that
Congress is aware of the canons and legislates in line with
these understandings. Nonetheless, jurists disagree on the
validity and content of certain canons and whether they
should apply. Thus, while Congress can draft statutes that
override the canons' default presumptions, these disputes
can make it difficult for Congress to know when a canon
might be triggered or how to avoid the presumption.
This In Focus briefly describes the canons of construction
and debates over their use, providing examples from
Supreme Court cases to illustrate some of the canons. For
more information on the tools of statutory interpretation and
an appendix compiling a longer list of the canons of
construction, see CRS Report R45153, Statutory
Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends, by Valerie C.
Brannon (2023).
What Are the Canons of Construction?
The canons of construction provide courts interpreting
statutes with default assumptions about how Congress
expresses meaning. Generally, legal scholars divide the
canons into two groups: semantic and substantive canons.
Semantic Canons
Semantic canons, also known as linguistic canons, are
presumptions about ordinary language use. Some reflect
standard rules of grammar. Some have historic Latin names.
For instance, noscitur a sociis, it is known by its
associates, counsels that a word is given meaning by
surrounding, associated words. The Supreme Court has
applied this canon to interpret statutes listing prohibited
activities, concluding that although one of the activities in
the list could be read broadly standing alone, the term has a
more limited scope when connected to other verbs
suggesting a specific type of prohibited activity.
Some semantic canons more specifically reflect
assumptions about how Congress writes statutes. One
example is the presumption of consistent usage and material
variation. As described by the Supreme Court, this principle
instructs that [i]n a given statute, the same term usually
has the same meaning and different terms usually have
different meanings. This canon assumes that Congress
intentionally uses consistent phrasing across an act, and that
any inconsistency is also intentional.
Substantive Canons
Substantive canons are presumptions for or against certain
outcomes. Some substantive canons are clear statement
rules, putting a thumb on the scale for a specific outcome
unless the statute makes a clear statement requiring a
different outcome. These canons call for Congress to draft
especially clearly when legislating in certain areas.
One historic substantive canon is the rule of lenity, saying
ambiguity in a criminal statute should be resolved in the
defendant's favor. This canon requires Congress to use
clear language that gives fair warning to defendants,
protecting the constitutional value of due process.
Other substantive canons are grounded in general legal
presumptions, rather than constitutional values. For
example, the reference canon states that a law referring to a
specific statutory provision in effect cuts and pastes the
referenced statute as it existed when the referring statute
was enacted, without any subsequent amendments. In
contrast, a statute that refers to a general body of law
evolves, incorporating the law on that subject as it exists
when the statutory dispute arises.
When Does an Interpretive Presumption
Become a Canon?
Courts frequently use interpretive principles without
describing them as canons. The canons of construction
overlap with other tools used to interpret statutes. Courts
frequently start a statutory analysis by looking to the text's
ordinary meaning, referring to dictionaries or a word's
everyday usage. While the Supreme Court has only rarely
described this inquiry as applying a canon, scholars have
identified this practice as an ordinary meaning canon. As
another example, the Supreme Court has sometimes
described a fundamental canon of statutory construction
that the words of a statute must be read in their context and
with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme-
but more frequently, the Court has looked to statutory
context without describing the analysis as a canon.
Canons of construction may evolve. One possible example
of this is the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the
expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others.
This canon may suggest, for instance, that where Congress
identified specific grounds for liability, the statute does not
also impose liability on another, unmentioned basis. Courts
have articulated other principles said to be related to this
canon. For instance, the Supreme Court sometimes rejects a
construction of a statute when it believes Congress knew
how to write a statute with that meaning, and in the case
before it, did not write that statute. In such cases, the Court
has pointed to another statute that more clearly expresses
the asserted meaning, implying that Congress knew how to
convey that meaning and chose not to. In addition, some
lower courts have recognized a so-called Russello canon
that Congress acts intentionally if it includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act. These principles all suggest courts
will not read extra language into a statute and will compare
https://crsreport
S
May 9, 2025](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.crs/cnsocnbrfovw0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most