This paper examines theories of judicial interpretation and the significant discretion judges exercise when applying statutory law. It introduces traditional canons of construction before analyzing Richard Taylor's concept of casuistry — the application of general moral principles to particular cases — as the philosophical foundation of judicial decision-making. The paper then explores judicial, prosecutorial, and jury nullification as expressions of extra-legal latitude. Key landmark cases, including Griswold v. Connecticut and Mortenson v. United States, illustrate how judges reshape law through creative interpretation. The paper concludes by advancing a personal philosophy of judicial interpretation centered on "doing the right thing" — favoring purposive, adaptive readings of statutes over strict constructionism.
The paper demonstrates the technique of building toward a normative claim through descriptive scaffolding. Rather than stating its "doing the right thing" thesis up front, the author first establishes the descriptive reality — that judges inevitably exercise discretion — using legal theory (Taylor's casuistry) and case examples. This rhetorical structure makes the normative conclusion feel earned rather than asserted.
The paper opens with an overview of judicial power and traditional interpretive canons, then moves to a philosophical analysis section covering casuistry, nullification, and judicial latitude. A final normative section advances the author's personal interpretive philosophy, and a brief conclusion ties the practical and philosophical threads together. The structure follows a classic descriptive-to-prescriptive pattern appropriate for a legal theory essay at the undergraduate or early graduate level.
Judges draft no legislation, but they create law nevertheless through their powers of judicial interpretation. Judges determine the outcome of particular cases by interpreting the meaning of a single phrase — and sometimes, a single word — within the applicable statute. By creating legal precedents, jurists sometimes decide entire lines of future cases merely by how they choose to interpret a single word or resolve an apparent ambiguity in the language of a statute.
American judges have developed numerous "canons" of jurisprudence that are supposed to operate as rules against arbitrary interpretation, such as:
"The expression of one thing constitutes the exclusion of others."
"Statutes that change the common law must be strictly construed."
"Penal statutes must be construed narrowly to protect the accused."
"Legislative intent in penal law must be found in the language actually used in the statutes." (Carter p. 67)
Regardless of any rules or principles of statutory construction or judicial interpretation, it is simply not possible to regulate or control how a given judge decides to interpret a crucial word or phrase when the choice lies completely with that judge to select between or among different possible interpretations. Likewise, there is comparative freedom on the part of judges to allocate as much weight — or as little — to competing principles of construction, where the outcome of a case turns on which principle is deemed more important or weighed more heavily against the other.
It is completely unrealistic to suggest that judges always interpret laws and weigh the applicable canons of judicial construction objectively, because judges are human beings with ethical philosophies and moral beliefs of their own. While few jurists wear their personal moral views on their sleeves and misuse their positions to proselytize their religious beliefs in the manner of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, they all entertain private beliefs and moral philosophies that play some role in every decision they make, whether on the bench or in their personal lives.
Judges are expert at the art of using words to justify decisions that could have been decided — and justified equally convincingly — either way. Often enough, two judges sitting on the same court reach diametrically opposite conclusions given an identical set of facts, hearing the same evidence, and interpreting the same applicable statutes. In those instances, only the breakdown of how many judges concur determines which view becomes law and which view is relegated to the law library as a "dissenting opinion."
Ultimately, each judge must develop a personal philosophy of statutory interpretation, precisely because that judge answers to nobody but himself or herself — and, if one believes in such accountability, to a higher power — when choosing one viable interpretation over an equally viable alternative. It is naive to suggest that judges interpret without considering the effect of their ruling. More often than not, judges probably choose one interpretation or favor certain criteria within their purview in order to issue a ruling they believe constitutes "justice" in that particular case, or in subsequent cases where their ruling is likely to influence adjudication of that issue in the future.
According to Professor Richard Taylor (1919–2003), a preeminent metaphysical philosopher, the issue of judicial interpretation boils down to the notion of the casuistry of all human decisions and judgments. Casuistry is defined as the procedure of determining "the moral quality of particular actions by the subsumption of them under true general rules or principles of morality." (Taylor p. 161)
In Taylor's view, moral principles form the basis and origin of all codified laws, but there exists no objective moral principle for which an exception cannot be found that would justify its suspension in a particular case. Since the language of a written law is sometimes — or often — too inflexible to account for objectively justifiable exceptions to the general rule, it is up to judges to use the tools of creative interpretation and "persuasive definition" to achieve justice. (Taylor p. 181)
The American legal system is replete with definitions and judicial constructions that originated purely in the minds of judges, for which codified laws left absolutely no provisions despite their practical necessity. Those definitions and constructions relied on the life experiences, sentiments, and feelings of the judges who defined them when hearing cases that required a new conceptual definition.
Examples of such arbitrary judicial constructs include scienter — specifically when it encompasses the notion of what a party "should have known" — reasonable prudence, and various legal presumptions, such as the presumed mindset of a "reasonable five-year-old." Other examples include what was or was not "within the contemplation of the parties" to a contract, and the all-encompassing concept of the "interests of justice."
An "extra-legal" concept is one that is neither recognized nor permitted under the formal legal system, but that sometimes operates nonetheless. One example is jury nullification, which includes any instance whereby jurors — either individually or as a group — vote for dismissal despite a plethora of inculpating evidence, where the defendant particularly arouses their sympathies, or where they simply abhor the consequences of a guilty verdict. (Haskell p. 35) Casuistry exists in the minds of jurors, and sworn oaths notwithstanding, nobody can ever challenge the reasons behind any particular juror's vote.
Prosecutorial nullification also exists in the form of the discretion to prosecute or to decline prosecution of a given case. As long as the decision represents the prosecutor's good faith rather than collusion, corruption, or malice, it is the ultimate form of nullification, since cases that a prosecutor declines to pursue never reach any judge or jury.
"Judicial nullification" encompasses the myriad ways that judges employ theories of construction, definition, choice of language, precedent, legislative history, and other intellectual tools of interpretation to achieve what they believe are the ends of justice. Unlike jury nullification — which is an overtly extra-legal concept — both prosecutorial and judicial nullification are simply inherent features of any system in which decisions are left to human judgment, subject only to the requirements of good faith and honesty.
As important as laws are to society, they are in reality nothing more than words — the words chosen by legislators with only the knowledge and contextual understanding available to them at the time of their promulgation. Their value lies in their intent to achieve ethical and just results. It is only the moral focus, ingenuity, and adaptability of subsequent jurists that breathes continued relevance and meaning into older laws and enables them to address modern situations that may not have been previously imaginable.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.