Legal Definitions - contemporaneous-construction doctrine

The contemporaneous-construction doctrine is a legal principle that applies when a law or statute is unclear or open to multiple interpretations. It states that the initial way an administrative agency (a government body responsible for enforcing the law) or a lower court understood and applied that ambiguous law should be given significant respect and weight by higher courts or later agencies. This is particularly true if that initial interpretation has been consistently followed and applied for a long period.

The rationale behind this doctrine is that those who were involved in the law's early implementation or were closest to its creation often have valuable insight into its intended meaning. Furthermore, a long-standing interpretation provides stability and predictability in how the law is applied.

Here are some examples to illustrate this doctrine:

• Environmental Regulations: Imagine a federal law passed in the 1970s that requires industries to prevent "unreasonable pollution" into waterways, but the term "unreasonable" is not precisely defined. The newly established Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) immediately issues detailed regulations and guidance, interpreting "unreasonable pollution" to mean exceeding specific chemical concentration limits for certain industrial discharges. For the next 40 years, the EPA consistently applies these limits, issues permits based on them, and enforces violations accordingly. If, decades later, a new company challenges these specific limits in court, arguing for a different interpretation of "unreasonable pollution," a court might invoke the contemporaneous-construction doctrine. The court would likely defer to the EPA's original, long-standing interpretation because it was made by the agency responsible for the law's initial implementation and has been consistently applied for a significant period, providing clarity and stability.

• Tax Deductions: Consider a state tax law enacted in the 1960s that allows small businesses to deduct "ordinary and necessary" expenses, but it doesn't explicitly list every type of expense that qualifies. The State Department of Revenue, the agency tasked with collecting taxes, soon after issues a series of bulletins and rulings clarifying that certain types of professional development courses and specific office equipment are indeed "ordinary and necessary" for small businesses in that state. For over 50 years, taxpayers and the Department of Revenue have consistently followed these interpretations. If a new state auditor or a taxpayer later tries to argue for a much narrower definition of "ordinary and necessary" expenses, a court would likely apply the contemporaneous-construction doctrine. The court would give deference to the Department of Revenue's original and consistently applied interpretation, recognizing its long-standing role in defining the practical application of the tax law.

• Professional Licensing: A state legislature passes a law in the 1990s requiring "adequate supervision" for certain medical procedures performed by physician assistants, but the law itself doesn't define what "adequate supervision" entails. The State Medical Board, responsible for licensing healthcare professionals, promptly issues regulations specifying that "adequate supervision" means a supervising physician must be physically present in the same facility during the procedure and must review all patient charts within 24 hours. For 25 years, all physician assistants and supervising physicians have adhered to these rules, and the Board has consistently enforced them. If a group of physician assistants later challenges these regulations in court, arguing that "adequate supervision" should allow for remote oversight, a court might apply the contemporaneous-construction doctrine. The court would likely defer to the Medical Board's initial and consistently enforced interpretation, given its early and sustained role in defining the law's practical requirements for patient safety.