Statutory Interpretation from the Outside

How should judges decide which linguistic canons to apply in interpreting statutes? One important answer looks the inside of legislative process: Follow rules that lawmakers contemplate. A different answer, based on “ordinary meaning” doctrine, outside: would guide an ordinary person’s understanding legal text. Empirical scholars have studied statutory interpretation from inside—revealing what drafters follow—but never outside. We offer a novel framework for empirically testing interpretive “from outside,” recruiting 4,500 people United States, as well sample U.S. law students, evaluate hypothetical scenarios correspond each canon’s triggering conditions. The empirical findings provide crucial evidence about traditional actually supports, and they carry several further implications. First, are not closed set. discovered new yet reflected canons, including one we term “non-binary gender canon” another “quantifier domain restriction canon.” Second, results support meaning doctrine itself, focused rules, opposed focus language” generally. Third, many reflect interpret with intuitive anti-literalism. This anti-literalism finding challenges textualist assumptions meaning, offering theme researching other currently unrecognized canons. Most broadly, hope Essay initiates research program interpretation. If is relevant interpretation, interpreters look how understand rules. see our experiments first step direction.