How Lockhart Should Have Been Decided (Canons Are Not the Key)

Abstract

Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (2016), is fascinating for its debate over conflicting canons of construction. It’s a perfect vehicle for examining what seems to me the Court's overreliance on textual methods of interpretation, and especially on certain canons. The article and the analysis take the form of an opinion by a self-appointed justice (the author). It criticizes the last-antecedent and surplusage canons, examines the varying standards for finding ambiguity, and notes the Court’s less-than-consistent pronouncements on the rule of lenity. Readers will notice the opinion’s uncommon candor and willingness to consider scholarly opinion.

Keywords: Textualism, Canons of Construction, Last-Antecedent Canon, Series-Qualifier Canon, Surplusage Canon, Ambiguity, Rule of Lenity's

JEL Classification: K40