Legal Definitions - strict constructionism

Strict constructionism is a legal philosophy that holds that judges should interpret laws, statutes, and constitutional provisions based solely on the literal, plain meaning of the words used in the text. Under this approach, judges aim to understand the document exactly as it is written, without considering external factors such as the original intent of the drafters, the historical context in which the law was created, or the potential social or economic consequences of their interpretation. This method emphasizes adherence to the precise language of the text, often assuming that the words themselves are the clearest and most authoritative guide to the law's meaning.

Here are some examples to illustrate strict constructionism:

• Criminal Statute Interpretation: Imagine a state law that prohibits "any motorized vehicle" from entering a public park. A person is cited for riding an electric scooter in the park. A judge applying strict constructionism would focus exclusively on the literal meaning of "motorized vehicle." If the law does not explicitly define "motorized vehicle" to include electric scooters, or if the common understanding of that term at the time the law was enacted did not encompass such devices, the judge might rule that the electric scooter does not fall under the statute's prohibition. The judge would not consider the broader intent of the law (e.g., to keep the park quiet or safe from fast-moving vehicles) but would stick strictly to the words as written.

• Contractual Agreement: Consider a business contract that states, "All intellectual property developed during the term of this agreement shall be the sole property of Company A." A dispute arises over a new software feature developed by an employee, who argues that while the contract uses "all," the *spirit* of the agreement was only for major innovations, not minor improvements. A judge employing strict constructionism would interpret "all intellectual property" literally. They would enforce the clause exactly as written, concluding that any intellectual property, regardless of its perceived significance, belongs to Company A, without delving into what the parties might have implicitly intended beyond the clear language.

• Constitutional Provision: Suppose a state constitution guarantees "the right to bear arms." A new law is passed that restricts the type of firearms citizens can own, arguing that the original intent of the framers was only to allow muskets for militia purposes. A judge adhering to strict constructionism would interpret "arms" based on its plain meaning at the time the constitution was written, or its common understanding today, rather than trying to discern the specific, unwritten intentions of the framers regarding future weapon technology. They would focus on the literal scope of "arms" as a general category, rather than limiting it based on historical context or perceived purpose.