Legal Definitions - amendment by implication

Amendment by Implication refers to a legal principle where a newer part of a law, without explicitly stating it, effectively changes or cancels an older or earlier part of the same law because the two provisions are contradictory. This occurs when a later provision's meaning or intent makes it impossible or illogical to apply an earlier provision as originally written. Courts generally try to avoid interpreting laws this way, preferring to find a way for all parts of a law to work together if possible, but it can be applied when there is a clear and unavoidable conflict.

• Example 1: Environmental Regulations

  Imagine a state law passed in 1990 that required all new factories to install a specific type of air scrubber (let's call it "Model A") to reduce sulfur emissions. In 2010, the state legislature passed a new environmental protection act. This new act mandated that all industrial facilities, regardless of when they were built, must meet a significantly stricter sulfur emission limit that can only be achieved by using a much more advanced technology ("Model B" scrubbers). The 2010 act did not explicitly state, "The 1990 requirement for Model A scrubbers is hereby repealed."

  How it illustrates the term: The 2010 law implicitly amended the 1990 law. While the older law still technically required Model A, the newer, stricter emission standard effectively made Model A obsolete and mandated a different, superior technology for compliance. The requirement for Model A was implicitly overridden because it could not achieve the new, mandatory standards.

• Example 2: Local Business Licensing

  Consider a city ordinance from 2005 that stated all food trucks operating within city limits must obtain a new operating permit annually by January 1st. In 2018, the city council passed a new initiative to encourage culinary innovation, creating a "Gourmet Food Truck Pilot Program." This program allowed a select number of innovative food trucks to receive a special three-year permit, renewable only after the three-year period, provided they met certain criteria. The 2018 initiative did not explicitly say, "Food trucks in the pilot program are exempt from the annual renewal requirement."

  How it illustrates the term: For the food trucks participating in the pilot program, the 2018 initiative implicitly amended the 2005 ordinance. The provision for a three-year permit directly contradicted the annual renewal requirement for these specific businesses, effectively suspending or modifying the older rule without explicitly stating so.

• Example 3: Public Land Use

  A county zoning regulation from 1970 stipulated that no permanent structures could be built within 50 feet of any designated public waterway to preserve natural habitats. In 2000, the county approved a major infrastructure project to build a new public pedestrian bridge across a specific river, which, due to engineering necessities, required the construction of support piers and access ramps within that 50-foot setback zone. The 2000 project approval did not explicitly state that it was overriding the 1970 setback rule for this particular location.

  How it illustrates the term: The approval of the bridge project in 2000 implicitly amended the 1970 zoning regulation for the specific area where the bridge was built. The later, specific authorization for the bridge's construction, which inherently required structures within the setback, created an unavoidable conflict with the general prohibition, thus implicitly modifying the older rule for that particular instance.