Category: Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation

“We must give effect to the specific over the general”

If you’re a litigator, you’ve probably invoked the specific-controls-the-general canon at one time or another.  Whether you’ve prevailed with that argument is another question; it ...
Read More →
Statutory interpretation

In statutory construction, be careful assuming the greater includes the lesser

The FDA has the undisputed power to ban a medical device entirely; but if it approves the device, it may not ban certain uses.  That ...
Read More →
Statutory interpretation

Katsas v. Randolph on jurisdictional order of operations

Not long ago, two D.C. Circuit decisions reminded us not to lean too hard on jurisdictional truisms (e.g., “jurisdiction can’t be waived”), which, though seemingly ...
Read More →
Statutory interpretation

Don’t lean too hard on jurisdictional truisms

Two recent decisions of the D.C. Circuit provide reminders that even jurisdictional truisms are not absolute. Truism #1:  If Congress says something is jurisdictional, it’s ...
Read More →
Statutory interpretation

The limits of the “Congress knows how to say” canon

In cases involving statutory construction, someone often will say, “if Congress had wanted to say X it would have been easy enough to say X.” ...
Read More →
Whale tail emerging from the water
Administrative law

D.C. Circuit throws shade on legislative history and Chevron

Are you a litigator looking for a federal case that (a) rejects legislative history, or (b) frowns on applying Chevron deference in the face of ...
Read More →
Baby elephants
Statutory interpretation

Major questions v. elephants in mouseholes

Do you know the difference between the major-questions doctrine and the no-elephants-in-mouseholes principle? If you ever find yourself litigating against federal agencies, it’s a distinction ...
Read More →