Legal Definitions - jus dicere

Jus dicere is a Latin term that describes the fundamental power and responsibility of a court or judge to interpret and apply existing law to specific cases. It literally means "to declare the law" or "to decide what the law means." This function is central to the judiciary, distinguishing it from the legislature, which is responsible for creating new laws.

When a court exercises jus dicere, it is not making new legal rules from scratch. Instead, it is examining established statutes, precedents (previous court decisions), and constitutional principles to determine their meaning and how they should be applied to the unique facts presented in a particular dispute.

Here are some examples illustrating jus dicere:

• Contract Dispute Resolution: Imagine two businesses have a disagreement over the terms of a complex service agreement. One party believes a specific clause requires the other to deliver software updates monthly, while the other argues it only applies annually. When the case goes to court, the judge will review the contract language, consider the intent of the parties, and apply established principles of contract law to determine the correct interpretation of that clause. The judge is not creating new contract law but is "declaring" what the existing law means for this specific contract and these particular parties.

• Statutory Interpretation in a New Context: A state legislature passes a law regulating "motorized vehicles" on public trails. Years later, electric bicycles (e-bikes) become popular, and a local park ranger issues a citation to an e-bike rider, arguing it falls under the "motorized vehicles" ban. The rider challenges the citation in court. The judge must then interpret the original statute's language to decide whether an e-bike, which has pedals but also an electric motor, qualifies as a "motorized vehicle" as intended by the legislature. The court is "declaring" the scope and meaning of the existing statute in a novel situation.

• Constitutional Challenge to a Government Policy: A city council passes an ordinance prohibiting all public protests within a certain distance of government buildings. A group of citizens believes this ordinance infringes upon their constitutional right to freedom of assembly and speech. They file a lawsuit. A court, potentially even the Supreme Court, would then review the city ordinance in light of the Constitution's provisions and relevant legal precedents concerning free speech. The court would "declare" whether the city's ordinance is permissible under the existing constitutional framework, thereby defining the boundaries of those rights in that specific context.