Principles of Statutory Construction Steve Nardulli April 22, 2016 steve.nardulli@gmail.com

Definition of statute – End product of the legislative process

Never represents the abstract exercise of power Always the legislative response to problems identified by legislative bodies as needing resolution Story behind statute is generally not disclosed as part of the statute

Legislation generally reflects compromise Nature of compromise within legislative context Concepts added or removed, language modified

Statute is a command of a particular legislature, must be obeyed, under threat of government sanction

Principles of statutory construction apply to ordinances – City of Evanston v OLeary 244 Ill App 3d 190 (1st Dist, 1993).

Interpretation of statutes as a judicial function Scalia – “we do not normally have a lawsuit in front of us if the language of a statute is clear” Search for meaning constitutes judicial interpretation Willingness of courts to ignore plain meaning of a statute

Judicial will must bend to legislative command a statute is a command issued by a superior body (legislature) to a subordinate body (judiciary) within constitutional limits basic tenet of democracy that statutes reflect the will of the populace, as defined by their elected representatives

Legislation, if determined to be unclear, must be interpreted within historical, legislative, policy, and statutory context.

Legislative meaning, intent and purpose If a statute is clear on its face, the inquiry ends without further review of context. LaSalle National Bank v City Suites, Inc., 325 Ill App 3d 780 (1st Dist, 2001)

Court may consider reason and necessity for statute and the evils it was intended to remedy, and will assume legislature did not intend an unjust result – Marriage of Beyer, 324 Ill App 3d 305 (1st Dist, 2001)

When a statute is unclear with response to a particular question Did the legislature intend this particular statutory provision to cover particular fact pattern Is there recitation of legislative intent which is inconsistent with plain language of statute Is there a distinction between legislative intent and purpose-- Inclusion of legislative purpose in language of statute

Clear and unclear statutory language Plain meaning of a statute – if meaning is plain, and if constitutional, judicial inquiry should end

When literal application of language leads to an absurd result Ancient decision that a statute prohibiting “letting blood in the streets” did not apply to emergency surgery Direction by teacher to sit down does not direct sitting down in place on floor

When plain language is inconsistent with stated legislative purpose

If language unclear, courts are to be guided by “canons of interpretation”

Interpret as constitutional if at all possible

Statute which affects local and state powers, state powers likely supersede any interpretation which undermines state authority Local government may add to state requirements but may not delete state requirements Local government is a creation of state authority

Statute should be interpreted as a whole, so that separate sections should be read in a consistent manner

Related statutes (statutes in para materia) should be read with reference to one another so that the sections can be given harmonious effect. People v Scheib (1979), 76 Ill 2d 244; People v Maya (1985), 105 Ill 2d 281.

Statute – particularly criminal statutes - should be interpreted as narrowly as possible.

Remedial statutes should be interpreted broadly

If statute is still unclear

Where there is a descriptive list which ends “and other like…” court must determine whether conduct in question is similar or an extension of the articulated items – ujusdem generis

Where list is long and does not provide for additions, it is meant to be exclusive

Later statutes should be interpreted as controlling earlier statutes

Where a court has previously interpreted a term in a statute and legislature failed to act to change the interpretation, the interpretation stands

Importance of legislative history Nature of legislative debate Role of lobbyists in creating “interpretations from the floor” and legislative talking points