RESEARCH STARTER

Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts analyze and clarify the meaning and application of laws enacted by legislatures. Given that much of federal and state law is based on statutory texts, interpreting these laws becomes essential, especially when they contain ambiguities or vague language that does not clearly outline legal rights and responsibilities. The Supreme Court serves as the ultimate authority on federal statutes, while state supreme courts interpret state laws. In this context, if the interpretation of a statute by the Supreme Court is at odds with the intentions of Congress or the president, they can amend the statute to address the discrepancy.

Three primary methods of statutory interpretation include textualism, which looks at the ordinary meaning of the words; intentionalism, which seeks to understand the lawmakers' intent through legislative history; and purposivism, which aims to discern the broader purpose behind the statute. Historically, the Supreme Court has favored legislative history over textualism, though this approach has been debated, particularly in recent decades by some Justices advocating for a more textualist perspective. The interpretation of statutes is crucial for ensuring that laws are applied fairly and consistently across different cases and contexts.

Full Article

DEFINITION: Judicial determination of the meaning of statutes enacted by a legislature.

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the Supreme Court’s function of interpreting the Constitution receives more attention, many, perhaps even a majority, of the cases before it that arise from federal courts involve questions of statutory interpretation.

Much federal and state law is based on statutes enacted by legislatures, as well as regulations issued by government agencies. Indeed, because federal common law is limited, much federal law, except constitutional law, is statutory. Article I of the Constitution states that a federal statute must be approved by a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate and then signed by the president. If the proposed statute is vetoed by the president, it can still become law if two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to enact it.

Statutes cannot be completely clear in all circumstances, and many statutes are quite vague and do not precisely specify legal rights and responsibilities. Therefore, courts must interpret statutes in deciding cases. The Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of federal statutes; however, if Congress and the president disagree with the Court’s interpretation of a statute, they can amend it so as to nullify the Court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court, however, is not the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of state statutes. This task is performed by state supreme courts. Many of the cases that reach the Supreme Court from the federal courts involve the interpretation of federal statutes rather than the Constitution.

The approaches to interpreting statutes can be sorted into three major categories: textualism, intentionalism, and purposivism, and courts also use tools such as canons of construction and reading the statute as a whole. Textualism focuses on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, while also considering the context in which those words appear. Intentionalism attempts to find the “intent” of the legislators who enacted the statute, often by consulting the legislative history of the statute, that is, the various documents produced when the legislature was considering the statute. Purposivism requires judges to determine the general purpose of the statute and adopt interpretations that further the statute’s general purpose. While the Court historically leaned toward purposivism and intentionalism, textualism began gaining prominence in the 1990s and became increasingly influential by the 2010s and 2020s, although courts still use more than one approach. After its decision in Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892), the Court increasingly relied on legislative history. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas vigorously argued that the Court should adopt a textualist approach and disregard legislative history when interpreting statutes. Later rulings demonstrated the Court’s increasingly textualist approach; for example, the Court interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018). In a different context, writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch used a textualist reading of the phrase “because of sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Later decisions, including Garland v. Cargill (2024), also show how the Court continues to debate how strictly to follow statutory text.


Bibliography

Brannon, Valerie C. “Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends.” Congress.gov, 10 Mar. 2023, www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153. Accessed 9 Apr. 2026.

Huang, Jim. “Rationalizing Absurdity.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 133, 13 May 2024, yalelawjournal.org/note/rationalizing-absurdity. Accessed 9 Apr. 2026.

Mikva, Abner J., and Eric Lane. An Introduction to Statutory Interpretation and the Legislative Process. Aspen Law & Business, 1997.

Oleszek, Walter J., et al. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 11th ed., Congressional Quarterly, 2019.

“17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.” Supreme Court of the United States, 15 June 2020, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Popkin, William D. Materials on Legislation: Political Language and the Political Process. 5th ed., Foundation Press, 2009.

Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law—An Essay. Edited by Amy Gutmann, Princeton UP, 1997.

“22-976 Garland v. Cargill.” Supreme Court of the United States, 14 June 2024, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Watry, Ruth Ann. Administrative Statutory Interpretation: The Aftermath of “Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.” LFB Scholarly Publications, 2002.

Full Article

DEFINITION: Judicial determination of the meaning of statutes enacted by a legislature.

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the Supreme Court’s function of interpreting the Constitution receives more attention, many, perhaps even a majority, of the cases before it that arise from federal courts involve questions of statutory interpretation.

Much federal and state law is based on statutes enacted by legislatures, as well as regulations issued by government agencies. Indeed, because federal common law is limited, much federal law, except constitutional law, is statutory. Article I of the Constitution states that a federal statute must be approved by a majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate and then signed by the president. If the proposed statute is vetoed by the president, it can still become law if two-thirds of both the House and Senate vote to enact it.

Statutes cannot be completely clear in all circumstances, and many statutes are quite vague and do not precisely specify legal rights and responsibilities. Therefore, courts must interpret statutes in deciding cases. The Supreme Court is the final authority on the meaning of federal statutes; however, if Congress and the president disagree with the Court’s interpretation of a statute, they can amend it so as to nullify the Court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court, however, is not the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of state statutes. This task is performed by state supreme courts. Many of the cases that reach the Supreme Court from the federal courts involve the interpretation of federal statutes rather than the Constitution.

The approaches to interpreting statutes can be sorted into three major categories: textualism, intentionalism, and purposivism, and courts also use tools such as canons of construction and reading the statute as a whole. Textualism focuses on the ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, while also considering the context in which those words appear. Intentionalism attempts to find the “intent” of the legislators who enacted the statute, often by consulting the legislative history of the statute, that is, the various documents produced when the legislature was considering the statute. Purposivism requires judges to determine the general purpose of the statute and adopt interpretations that further the statute’s general purpose. While the Court historically leaned toward purposivism and intentionalism, textualism began gaining prominence in the 1990s and became increasingly influential by the 2010s and 2020s, although courts still use more than one approach. After its decision in Holy Trinity Church v. United States (1892), the Court increasingly relied on legislative history. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas vigorously argued that the Court should adopt a textualist approach and disregard legislative history when interpreting statutes. Later rulings demonstrated the Court’s increasingly textualist approach; for example, the Court interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018). In a different context, writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch used a textualist reading of the phrase “because of sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). Later decisions, including Garland v. Cargill (2024), also show how the Court continues to debate how strictly to follow statutory text.


Bibliography

Brannon, Valerie C. “Statutory Interpretation: Theories, Tools, and Trends.” Congress.gov, 10 Mar. 2023, www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45153. Accessed 9 Apr. 2026.

Huang, Jim. “Rationalizing Absurdity.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 133, 13 May 2024, yalelawjournal.org/note/rationalizing-absurdity. Accessed 9 Apr. 2026.

Mikva, Abner J., and Eric Lane. An Introduction to Statutory Interpretation and the Legislative Process. Aspen Law & Business, 1997.

Oleszek, Walter J., et al. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 11th ed., Congressional Quarterly, 2019.

“17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.” Supreme Court of the United States, 15 June 2020, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Popkin, William D. Materials on Legislation: Political Language and the Political Process. 5th ed., Foundation Press, 2009.

Scalia, Antonin. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law—An Essay. Edited by Amy Gutmann, Princeton UP, 1997.

“22-976 Garland v. Cargill.” Supreme Court of the United States, 14 June 2024, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Watry, Ruth Ann. Administrative Statutory Interpretation: The Aftermath of “Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.” LFB Scholarly Publications, 2002.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (5)

Related Articles (5)