Plain meaning rule
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 242 U.S. 470 - Caminetti v. United States · 1917Most cited · 5,300 citing opinions
It is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain, and if the law is within the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body which passed it, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.
How the Supreme Court has restated “Plain meaning rule”
Each Supreme Court definition of “Plain meaning rule,” 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 “Plain meaning rule”
Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “Plain meaning rule” — 6,169 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 3 definitions, chronological · 1917–1929
- ORIGINAL
We have a clear opinion as to what the subsection means if the words are taken in their natural, straightforward, and literal sense. ... There is a strong presumption that the literal meaning is the true one, especially as against a construction that is not interpretation, but perversion.
interpretation
Where the language of an enactment is clear, and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended. And in such cases legislative history may not be used to support a construction that adds to or takes from the significance of the words employed.