When interpreting ambiguous statutes or contracts, courts often rely on grammar to analyze the text.
Two recent Circuit Court of Appeals opinions demonstrate this process, highlighting the importance of grammatical rules in shaping the outcome of cases.
Grammar in Action: The Case of EB5 Holdings Inc v. Edlow
The case of EB5 Holdings Inc v. Edlow centered on whether a Regional Center was required to pay into an anti-fraud fund.
The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the word “designated” and its function as a past participle.
According to the court, the past participle “designated” was used as an adjective to describe the present state of a Regional Center, rather than its timing of designation.
The court cited SCOTUS precedent in applying a straightforward rule of grammar, stating that “in ordinary English grammar, we ‘routinely’ use the past participle in this sense—that is, as an adjective ‘to describe the present state of a thing'”.
This interpretation led the court to conclude that EB5 Holdings was subject to the fees, as its current status as a designated Regional Center controlled, not the timing of its designation.
The Last Antecedent Rule: Englehardt v. Blanche
In Englehardt v. Blanche, the D.C. Circuit applied the last antecedent rule to determine the sources of funds for the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund.
Related: Lawyers Adapt to New Client Habits
The court analyzed the language defining the fund’s money sources, focusing on the word “related” and its application to the preceding offenses.
Lawyers should be prepared to examine the complexities of grammar and precedent when interpreting federal statutes.
By broadening their research and citing cases from various jurisdictions, lawyers can build stronger arguments and increase their chances of success.
Examining similar situations or past events in the same field can provide a deeper understanding of how grammar rules are applied in practice.
For instance, the application of the last antecedent rule in Englehardt v. Blanche is reminiscent of its application in other cases, such as Barnhart v. Thomas, where the rule was used to interpret a different statute.
By examining these similarities and differences, lawyers can develop a more detailed understanding of how grammar rules are used to shape the meaning of ambiguous language, which can help them create a syllabus for their research.
The complexity of federal statutes and the unpredictability of their interpretation highlight the need for careful research and analysis.
By recognizing the importance of grammar in shaping the outcome of cases, lawyers can better analyze the complexities of federal law and build stronger arguments for their clients.
