Example 7.1
Takeaway point 7.1: Use dictionaries, usage, and commonsense examples to illustrate the “ordinary meaning” of a disputed term.
When lawyers battle over the meaning of a disputed term, they use “canons” — interpretive rules for construing the meaning of a word or phrase.
We look next at one of the primary canons: ordinary meaning. Courts usually conclude that a disputed term in a statute or contract means whatever that term typically means.In the next example, an American who traveled to the Middle East was tortured and killed. His family sued the Palestinian Authority, which had allegedly overseen and approved the torture and murder. The lawsuit was based on the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which authorizes suit against any "individual" who violates the TVPA’s provisions. The Palestinian Authority moved to dismiss, arguing that “individual” refers only to human beings, not organizations. The example shows how lawyers argued that the word “individual” barred the lawsuit.
Source: Brief of the Palestinian Authority from Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 132 S. Ct. 1702 (2011).
Textual arguments often begin by emphasizing that text — not legislative history or policy — is the primary method of interpreting a statute or clause.
The brief introduces its first canon: ordinary meaning. The next paragraph applies this canon to the word “individual.” The brief also draws a clear line between its interpretation and the other side’s interpretation.
The brief cites four dictionaries that were published from 1986 to 1990.
These creative examples suggest that the meaning of “individual” is apparent from the word’s ordinary use. Chief Justice Roberts used a similar passage in his opinion in AT&T Inc., 131 S. Ct. at 1182 (cited above) (“We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word ’personal’ to describe them.”).
The next few paragraphs reflect common techniques for construing a statute under the ordinary meaning canon, such as looking at how courts have used a term and at how other statutes and regulations define a term.