Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship Fall 2006 Absurd Results, Scrivener's Errors, and Statutory Interpretation Andrew S. Gold Brooklyn Law School,
[email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation 75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 25 (2006-2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. ABSURD RESULTS, SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Andrew S. Gold* INTRODUCTION When a sheriff arrests a postal employee for murder, does the arrest violate a law against obstructing the passage of the mail?' Or, suppose that a statute makes it illegal to "draw blood" in the streets. Do its terms apply to a doctor who performs emergency surgery in the street?2 What of a prisoner who breaks out of prison because the building is on fire? Does his flight violate a law against prison escapes? 3 Many would say that these laws should not be taken literally. In order to avoid odd results, however, courts sometimes have to rewrite a statute's words. For example, the Ninth Circuit recently concluded, while interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, that the word "less" actually means "more. ' 4 Other courts have found that the word "of' means "or,"5 and the word "unlawful" means "lawful." 6 Should judges ever have the power to revise unambiguous statutes? Textualists generally say no to this question, and yet they recognize * Assitant Professor, DePaul University College of Law.