Introduction to Statutory Interpretation in California

Introduction to Statutory Interpretation in California By Chris Micheli

            What is statutory interpretation or statutory construction? They are essentially the same thing. Both terms refer to how the judicial branch (i.e., the courts of this state) interprets statutes, which are enacted by bills (through the legislative process) or by statutory initiatives (through the adoption of ballot initiatives by the state’s voters). These same principles of statutory construction or interpretation are used for laws enacted by the People or by the Legislature.

            Why is it important to have a basic understanding of how laws are interpreted by the courts in California? Understanding how the courts interpret statutes (and regulations and constitutional amendments) is important to anyone who works with these bodies of law. Costly and time-consuming litigation can occur when there are disputes about ambiguous legal language.

            While bill drafters focus on concise, clear, and consistent language, it is rare that a statute can either cover every conceivable scenario or be perfectly clear in every instance. As a result, those working with statutes and regulations should understand how the judicial branch of the state and federal governments interpret the laws enacted by the legislative branch (statutes) or adopted by the executive branch (regulations).

            The courts at both the federal and state levels usually begin with the “plain meaning” of the provision of law. In other words, if the law is clear and can be applied without interpretation, then the “words on the page” will dictate the outcome. On the other hand, if there is ambiguity, meaning that the words are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, then the judiciary will apply principles of statutory construction or interpretation.

            The judicial branch may consider both extrinsic (e.g., materials used during the legislative or regulatory consideration of the law changes) and intrinsic (e.g., the changing language of the statute or regulation) aids. The use of these aids, as well as canons or principles of interpretation are designed to understand the intent of the legislature, regulatory entity, or the People.

            In addition, there are different schools of thought regarding the interpretation of statutes. For example, there are judges who are textualists, which means they are focused on the words of the text and rarely deviate from the words on the page. There are also intentionalists, who focus on trying to interpret based on the intent of the legislature or drafter. And, finally, there are purposivists, who try to interpret laws based upon the general purpose of the language.

            In interpreting statutes, the judicial branch uses canons of construction primarily. These are generally in two main categories: semantic canons (also called linguistic canons) and substantive canons. The semantic canons are presumption about the use of ordinary language including rules of grammar. Substantive canons are described as presumptions for or against certain outcomes.

            In most instances, judges rely upon the text of the law, perhaps referring to a dictionary or two when beginning their analysis. In general, the courts understand that the Legislature uses words for meaning and that the legislative body acts intentionally in choosing the language of a statute. Courts generally avoid reading extra language into a statute.

            In California, the courts will try to ascertain the intent of the Legislature when there is ambiguity in the statute. The benefit of canons is that the legislature, courts, and regulated entities should have predictability when statutes are being interpreted. Legislative history may be key to determining the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.