Implied repeal
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 272 U.S. 321 - United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile · 1926Most cited · 783 citing opinions
To establish an implied repeal there must, under the legislative mandate, be shown some necessary contradiction, so extreme as to justify this court in finding it impossible to permit the government the choice between the two remedies where the facts bring the offense within the provisions of both statutes.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Implied repeal”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Implied repeal,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “Implied repeal”
Court decisions citing the 4 opinions that defined “Implied repeal” — 1,716 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 4 definitions, chronological · 1873–1966
- ORIGINAL
To justify this court in holding that the act passed in that year repealed or modified the sixteenth section of the charter of the bank in question, it must appear that the later provision is certainly and clearly in hostility to the former. If, by any reasonable construction, the two statutes can stand together, they must so stand. If harmony is impossible, and only in that event, the former law is repealed in part or wholly, as the case may be.
Such repeals are not favored, and usually occur only where there is such an irreconcilable conflict between an earlier and a later statute that effect reasonably cannot be given to both. Where there are two statutes upon the same subject, the earlier being special and the later general, the presumption is, in the absence of an express repeal, or an absolute incompatibility, that the special is intended to remain in force as an exception to the general.
Repeals of the antitrust laws by implication from a regulatory statute are strongly disfavored, and have only been found in cases of plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions