DOCSLIB.ORG

CH 47 Statutes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CH 47 Statutes STATUTES ...................................................................................................... 1 §47-1 Statutory Construction ............................................................................. 1 §47-1(a) Generally ........................................................................................... 1 §47-1(b) Plain Meaning – Clear and Unambiguous Language .............. 9 §47-1(c) Interpreting Ambiguous Language ........................................... 19 §47-1(c)(1) Legislative History ............................................................. 19 §47-1(c)(2) Maxims of Statutory Interpretation ............................... 23 §47-1(c)(3) Rule of Lenity ...................................................................... 29 §47-1(c)(4) Other ...................................................................................... 34 §47-2 Effective Date ............................................................................................ 38 §47-2(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 38 §47-2(b) Ex Post Facto .................................................................................. 40 §47-2(c) Retroactivity ................................................................................... 50 §47-3 Constitutionality of Statutes ................................................................. 54 §47-3(a) Method of Challenge ..................................................................... 54 §47-3(a)(1) Generally .............................................................................. 54 §47-3(a)(2) As Applied ............................................................................. 56 §47-3(a)(3) Facial ..................................................................................... 57 §47-3(b) Basis of Challenge ......................................................................... 61 §47-3(b)(1) First Amendment ................................................................ 61 §47-3(b)(1)(a) Freedom of Speech .................................................. 61 §47-3(b)(1)(a)(1) Harrassment/Stalking/Threats ................... 61 §47-3(b)(1)(a)(2) Abusive Language ......................................... 63 §47-3(b)(1)(a)(3) Obscenity/Pornography ............................... 66 i §47-3(b)(1)(b) News Media Cases .................................................... 68 §47-3(b)(1)(c) Right of Assembly .................................................... 70 §47-3(b)(1)(d) Government Loyalty and Flag Desecration ....... 72 §47-3(b)(1)(e) Other ........................................................................... 73 §47-3(b)(2) Second Amendment ............................................................ 82 §47-3(b)(2)(a) Right to Bear Arms Violated ................................. 82 §47-3(b)(2)(b) Right to Bear Arms Not Violated .......................... 85 §47-3(b)(3) Classifications ..................................................................... 88 §47-3(b)(3)(a) Generally .................................................................... 88 §47-3(b)(3)(b) Equal Protection ...................................................... 90 §47-3(b)(3)(c) Juveniles .................................................................... 97 §47-3(b)(4) Due Process ........................................................................ 101 §47-3(b)(4)(a) Generally .................................................................. 101 §47-3(b)(4)(b) Procedural ............................................................... 107 §47-3(b)(4)(c) Substantive/Privacy .............................................. 109 §47-3(b)(5) Overbreadth/Sweeps in Innocent Conduct ................. 115 §47-3(b)(6) Vagueness ........................................................................... 121 §47-3(b)(7) Illinois Constitution ......................................................... 131 §47-3(b)(7)(a) Separation of Powers ............................................ 131 §47-3(b)(7)(b) Proportionate Penalties ....................................... 136 §47-3(b)(7)(c) Single Subject Rule ................................................ 139 §47-3(b)(7)(d) Privacy Clause ........................................................ 145 §47-3(b)(7)(e) Lockstep Analysis .................................................. 146 §47-3(b)(7)(f) Other ......................................................................... 146 ii §47-3(b)(8) Other .................................................................................... 147 §47-3(c) Method of Review ........................................................................ 148 §47-3(c)(1) Rational Basis .................................................................... 148 §47-3(c)(2) Intermediate Scrutiny ..................................................... 151 §47-3(c)(3) Strict Scrutiny ................................................................... 152 iii STATUTES §47-1 Statutory Construction §47-1(a) Generally Illinois Supreme Court Round v. Lamb, 2017 IL 122271 Procedural commands to government officials are presumed to be directory, and that presumption is overcome only if negative language in the statute prohibits further action in the case of noncompliance or the right which the statute is designed to protect would generally be injured if the statute were read as directory. The court concluded that although Public Act 97-531 amended 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 to require the trial court to include an MSR term in the written sentencing order, that requirement is directory rather than mandatory. In re Jordan G., 2015 IL 116834 Whether parts of a statute that have been declared unconstitutional may be severed from the rest of the statute involves questions of statutory interpretation and legislative intent. Where a statute does not contain its own severability provision, the severability section of the Statute on Statutes is utilized. That statute provides that the invalidity of one provision of a statute does not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision. (5 ILCS 70/1.31). People v. Mosley, 2015 IL 115872 The issue of severability involves questions of statutory interpretation and legislative intent. Where a statute does not contain its own severability provision, the severability section of the Statute on Statutes is utilized. That statute provides that the invalidity of one provision of a statute does not affect other provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision. (5 ILCS 70/1.31). People v. Tousignant, 2014 IL 115329 The same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes govern the interpretation of Supreme Court rules. The goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the rule’s drafters. While the word “or” is generally disjunctive, it will not be given its literal meaning where to do so would frustrate the drafter’s intent. In those circumstances, “or” will be considered to mean “and.” The Court found that Supreme Court Rule 604(d) was intended to ensure that all issues concerning a guilty plea be presented to the trial court in a postplea motion. Consistent with that intent, the term “or” should be interpreted as “and.” In re M.I., 2013 IL 113776 Whether a statutory command is mandatory or directory is a question of statutory construction that is reviewed de novo. Statutes are mandatory if the intent of the legislature dictates a particular consequence for the failure to comply with the provision. In the absence of such legislative intent, the statute is directory and no specific consequence flows from noncompliance. The use of the word “shall” is not determinative of the mandatory/directory question. A presumption exists that language issuing a procedural command to a government official indicates that the statute is directory. This presumption is overcome when: (1) there 1 is negative language prohibiting further action in the case of noncompliance; or (2) the right that the provision is designed to protect would be injured under a directory reading. The Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) statute provides that a hearing on a State’s motion to designate a proceeding as an EJJ proceeding “shall commence . within 30 days of the filing of the motion, unless good cause is shown . [in which case] the hearing shall be held within 60 days of the filing of the motion.” 705 ILCS 405/5-810(2). While use of the word “shall” indicates that the court has an obligation to hold a hearing on the motion, use of that term does not control the mandatory/directory question. The EJJ statute is presumed directory because it issues a procedural command to a government official. The presumption that the statute is directory is not overcome by either condition. The statute lacks any negative language prohibiting further action if the hearing is not held within 60 days. The right that the statute is designed to protect was not injured under a directory reading. The minor received notice of the motion and a hearing before being subject to an EJJ proceeding and has not shown how he was prejudiced by a hearing conducted outside the 60-day limit. The court rejected the minor’s arguments that a mandatory reading would eliminate any “state of uncertainty” for the minor, unnecessary delays, and use of the motion as a litigation tactic. People v. Jackson & Lee, 2011 IL 110615 The court discussed several rules of statutory construction. The construction of a statute is a question of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Clash of Canons: Lenity, Chevron, and the One- Statute, One-Interpretation Rule
    A Clash of Canons: Lenity, Chevron, and the One- Statute, One-Interpretation Rule JUSTIN LEVINE* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1424 I. THE RULE OF LENITY AND THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE . 1427 A. THE RULE OF LENITY ...................................... 1427 1. Types of Canons ............................... 1427 2. Rule of Lenity Examined......................... 1429 B. THE CHEVRON DOCTRINE ................................... 1430 1. Pre-Chevron Jurisprudence ....................... 1430 2. Chevron's Two-Step Doctrine ..................... 1431 3. Chevron's Rationales ........................... 1432 4. Mead's Emphasis on Congressional Intent. 1433 C. LENITY AND CHEVRON IN CONFLICT .......................... 1434 1. Overview .................................... 1434 2. Possible Resolutions ............................ 1435 a. Lenity Over Chevron (Lenity in Step One). 1435 b. Chevron Limited by Lenity (Lenity in Step Two) . 1436 c. Chevron Over Lenity ........................ 1436 d. Path Dependence ........................... 1438 II. ONE-STATUTE, ONE-INTERPRETATION RULE REJECTED . 1438 A. OVERVIEW .............................................. 1438 B. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT RE-EXAMINED .................... 1440 1. Leocal v. Ashcroft .............................. 1441 * Georgetown Law, J.D. expected 2019; Dartmouth College, A.B. 2016. © 2019, Justin Levine. I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Professors Bernick and Westmoreland for their insights on administrative law and
    [Show full text]
  • Whither the Rule of Lenity by Dan Levin & Nathaniel Stewart*
    Whither the Rule of Lenity by Dan Levin & Nathaniel Stewart* he “rule of lenity” “requires ambiguous criminal laws to manner based on strict statutory construction, it is perhaps be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to not surprising that at times it results in interesting coalitions them.”1 Although long a favorite of defense attorneys, that cross the Court’s traditional conservative-liberal lines. As T 10 actual applications of the rule, at least at the Supreme Court noted, Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Santos was joined level,2 have been relatively rare. Th is is perhaps somewhat by Justices Th omas, Ginsburg, and Souter; Justice Stevens surprising as the rule’s roots in due process principles, and concurred in the judgment and wrote separately, also endorsing potential application where a strict construction of a statute application of the rule. Justice Alito fi led a dissenting opinion results in an ambiguity, could lead both traditionally liberal joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Kennedy and Breyer. and traditionally conservative Justices to favor its use. In 2008, Other discussions of the rule of lenity in the most recent in United States v. Santos, the Supreme Court issued a plurality three terms have included the following: Justice Ginsburg opinion holding that a key term in a federal money laundering acknowledging that the statutory defi nition in question was statute was ambiguous and applied the rule of lenity to resolve “not a model of the careful drafter’s art” and yet declining to the ambiguity
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Language and Lenity Lawrence Solan
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 1998 Law, Language and Lenity Lawrence Solan Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 57 (1998) 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. LAW, LANGUAGE, AND LENITY LAWRENCE M. SOLAN ° TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................ 58 I. A LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO PROBLEMS IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ................................ 62 A. Ambiguity ............................... 62 B. Conceptual Problems ....................... 65 1. The Psychology of Conceptualization ....... 65 2. What is a Security?: A Legal Example ...... 75 3. Conceptual Problems in Statutory Construction .......................... 78 a. Vagueness and Overinclusion ......... 79 b. Underinclusionand the Linguistic Wall . 83 C. Summary ............................... 86 II. THREE APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING CRIMINAL STATUTES: A COGNITIVELY DRIVEN HISTORY ......... 86 A. Naked Lenity ............................. 87 B. The American Tradition of Strict Construction ... 89 1. Chief Justice Marshalland Legislative Primacy ............................. 89 2. Justice Story and the Meaning of Words ..... 94 C. Narrowing the Rule of Lenity ................ 97 1. A Shift in the Interpretive Culture ......... 97 * Associate Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. This work was supported in part by a summer research stipend from Brooklyn Law School. I wish to thank my research assistants, Nicholas Moyne, Harold Olsen, and Robyn Schneider, for their extremely valuable contributions to this project. I also am grateful to Ursula Bentele, Susan Herman, Roberta Karmel, Gary Minda, Tony Sebok, Steve Siegel, Peter Tiersma, Spencer Waller, and Steve Winter for their discussion of many of the issues that I address in this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Norms, Empiricism, and Canons in Statutory Interpretation William N
    Norms, Empiricism, and Canons in Statutory Interpretation William N. Eskridge, Jr.t In the abstract, there should be little quarrel with the propo- sition that theories of statutory interpretation should be sub- jected to empirical testing.' Pragmatic thinkers and practitioners ought to be open to any theory that has a "cash-value," as phi- losopher William James put it.' If an uncompromising application of statutory plain meaning, what I have called the "new textual- ism," produces more predictable results than eclectic theories now deployed by pragmatic judges and scholars, then theory and prac- tice ought to move toward textualism, even more than they al- ready have.' If studies deploying a variety of rigorous techniques show that following a textualist approach generates more consis- tent and uniform interpretations by a variety of different judges than other approaches to statutory interpretation (original in- tent, purpose), pragmatists ought to consider those findings as a significant reason to support and adopt a more strictly textual approach to statutory interpretation. Many formalists appreciate the Jamesian insight. Text-based theories of statutory interpretation areusually justified in part by factual claims. For instance, Justice Antonin Scalia argues that judges should not consult legislative history because such materials (1) are an illegitimate source of statutory meaning un- der Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, which renders the text the only source of law and augurs against crediting the views of congressional subgroups; (2) are unreliable and often misleading evidence of legislative deals, and hence are not worth the re- t John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent
    2011] 717 THE BETTER PART OF LENITY Marie Gryphon In her thoughtful evaluation of the report titled, Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law ,1 Geraldine Moohr explores the contribution of the federal criminal law’s diminished mens rea requirements to the problem of “overcriminalization.” Overcriminalization is a neologism that defies uncontroversial definition, but that generally refers to the unjustified use of the criminal law to punish conduct that is not blameworthy in any traditional sense. 2 This comment expands on Professor Moohr’s response to Without Intent’s recommenda- tion that Congress pass legislation codifying the rule of lenity, 3 a judicial canon of construction applicable specifically to criminal laws, which holds that ambiguous criminal laws should always be construed narrowly, in the manner most favorable to the criminal defendant. 4 Like Professor Moohr, I am concerned that a codified rule of lenity may be interpreted and applied by the courts in a way that could “undermine the goal of the recommenda- tion.” 5 The following analysis summarizes the current state of the law and makes some predictions about the likely effect of a codified lenity in order to help those battling the phenomenon of overcriminalization to evaluate the perils and rewards of this particular strategy. Lenity has been a part of the English common law for several centu- ries, and was in use long before the ratification of the United States Consti- tution. 6 The Supreme Court recognized the rule of lenity as a principle of U.S. law as early as 1820 in United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency
    SUBSTANTIVE CANONS AND FAITHFUL AGENCY AMY CONEY BARRETT∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 109 I. FAITHFUL AGENCY AND SUBSTANTIVE CANONS ................................ 112 A. The Norm of Faithful Agency ...................................................... 112 B. The Canons .................................................................................. 117 C. The Tension Between Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency ......................................................................................... 121 II. SUBSTANTIVE CANONS IN HISTORY .................................................... 125 A. Stories of Well-Known Substantive Canons ................................ 128 1. Lenity..................................................................................... 128 2. Charming Betsy ..................................................................... 134 3. Avoidance .............................................................................. 138 4. The Presumption Against Retroactivity ................................ 143 5. The Sovereign Immunity Clear Statement Rules .................. 145 6. The Indian Canon .................................................................. 151 7. Other Canons ......................................................................... 153 B. The Implications of History for Textualism ................................. 155 III. BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS IN A MATURE LEGAL SYSTEM ............. 159 IV. THE JUDICIAL
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Historical Rule of Lenity As a Canon
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2020 Restoring the Historical Rule of Lenity as a Canon Shon Hopwood Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2320 New York University Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 4, Pp. 918-951. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons 42594-nyu_95-4 Sheet No. 23 Side B 10/08/2020 07:57:54 \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYU\95-4\NYU403.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-OCT-20 8:23 RESTORING THE HISTORICAL RULE OF LENITY AS A CANON SHON HOPWOOD* In criminal law, the venerated rule of lenity has been frequently, if not consistently, invoked as a canon of interpretation. Where criminal statutes are ambiguous, the rule of lenity generally posits that courts should interpret them narrowly, in favor of the defendant. But the rule is not always reliably used, and questions remain about its application. In this article, I will try to determine how the rule of lenity should apply and whether it should be given the status of a canon. First, I argue that federal courts should apply the historical rule of lenity (also known as the rule of strict construction of penal statutes) that applied prior to the 1970s, when the Supreme Court significantly weakened the rule. The historical rule requires a judge to consult the text, linguistic canons, and the structure of the statute and then, if reasonable doubts remain, interpret the statute in the defendant’s favor.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstructing the Rule of Lenity
    Romantz.40.2.2 (Do Not Delete) 1/17/2019 6:23 PM RECONSTRUCTING THE RULE OF LENITY David S. Romantz† “If [lenity] is no longer the presupposition of our law, the Court should say so, and reduce the rule of lenity to an historical curiosity.” —Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 21 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................524 I. A SHORT HISTORY OF LENITY ..................................................................................526 II. THE MODERN APPROACH .........................................................................................534 A. Universal C.I.T. and the Decline of Lenity ................................................534 B. The Rule of Lenity After Universal C.I.T. ..................................................538 C. The Rise of Ultimate Ambiguity ..................................................................547 D. The Pull of Lenity ..........................................................................................557 E. Textualism and the Rule of Lenity ..............................................................561 F. When is an Ambiguous Statute Ambiguous? .............................................565 III. A WAY FORWARD .....................................................................................................567 CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................576
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Scalia's Originalism and Formalism
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 8-30-2016 Justice Scalia’s Originalism and Formalism: The Rule of Criminal Law as a Law of Rules Stephanos Bibas University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Legal History Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Rule of Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Repository Citation Bibas, Stephanos, "Justice Scalia’s Originalism and Formalism: The Rule of Criminal Law as a Law of Rules" (2016). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1664. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1664 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL REPORT | NO. 187 AUGUST 30, 2016 Justice Scalia’s Originalism and Formalism: The Rule of Criminal Law as a Law of Rules Stephanos Bibas originalists seemed to focus on the Framers’ sub- jective intent, a hazardous inquiry given the paucity ar too many reporters and pundits collapse law of sources and the difficulty of separating sincerity Finto politics, assuming that the left–right divide from propaganda. between Democratic and Republican appointees Rather than plumbing the Framers’ minds, Jus- neatly explains politically liberal versus politically tice Scalia took an objective approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: the Role of United Stat-Es Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws
    Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United Stat-es Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws. ANTONIN SCALIA THE FOLLOWING essay attempts to explain the current. ne-. glected state of the science of construing legal texts, and offers a few suggestions for improvement. It is addressed not just to· lawyers but to all thoughtful Americans who share our national obsession with the law. THE COMMON LAW The first year of law school makes an enormous impact upon the mind. Many students remark upon the phenomenon. They exp~rience a sort of intellectual rebirth, the acquisition of a whole new mode of perceiving and thinking. Thereafter, even if they do not yet know much law, they do-as the expression goe~"think like a lawyer." The overwhelming majority of the courses taught in that first year, and surely the ones that have the most profound effect, teach the substance, and the methodology, of the common law-torts, for example; contracts; property; criminal law. I am grateful for technical and research assistance by Matthew P. Previn, and for substantive suggestions by Eugene Scalia. 3 ' ANTONIN SCALIA COMMON-LAW COURTS IN A CIVIL-LAW SYSTEM American lawyers cut their teeth upon the common law. To un- pioneered by Harvard Law School in the last century,. and . derstand what an effect that must have, you must appreciate brought to movies and TV by the redoubtable Professor Kings­ that the common law is not really common law, except insofar field of Love Story and The Paper Chase. The student is directed to as judges can be regarded as common.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Interpret Statutes - Or Not: Plain Meaning and Other Phantoms
    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 10 Issue 2 Article 5 2009 How to Interpret Statutes - Or Not: Plain Meaning and Other Phantoms Steven Wisotsky Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Steven Wisotsky, How to Interpret Statutes - Or Not: Plain Meaning and Other Phantoms, 10 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 321 (2009). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol10/iss2/5 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW TO INTERPRET STATUTES - OR NOT: PLAIN MEANING AND OTHER PHANTOMS* Steven Wisotsky** I. INTRODUCTION In 1926 the Government alleged that Timothy McBoyle hired a pilot to steal an airplane and fly it from Illinois to Oklahoma. Although McBoyle denied the charge, the jury convicted him of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of a federal statute. The operative language of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act of 1919 defined "motor vehicle" to include "an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motor cycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle not designed for running on rails."I On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction, rejecting McBoyle's contentions that the word "vehicle" includes only conveyances that travel on the ground; that an airplane is not a vehicle but a ship; and that, under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, the phrase "any other self-propelled vehicle" cannot be construed to include an airplane.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Lenity Play a Role?
    RUTGERS BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL MARK S. POPOFSKY The Section 2 Debate: Should Lenity Play a Role? ABSTRACT. The Supreme Court‟s recent decision in Illinois Tool Works, by invoking the Rule of Lenity in construing the Sherman Act in a civil setting, raises a fundamental question concerning that statute: Should the theoretical possibility of criminal sanctions for monopolization offenses (Section 2 of the Sherman Act) narrow the Sherman Act in civil actions? Commentators have suggested that the answer might be yes. This Essay disagrees, and argues that lenity properly plays no role in judicial elaboration of the Sherman Act. Although the Supreme Court‟s insistence that a statute with both civil and criminal applications must mean the same thing regardless of enforcement setting appears to preclude different constructions of the Sherman Act depending on the selected enforcement tool, that merely raises the more fundamental issue of whether the Sherman Act is ambiguous in a lenity- triggering sense. The Essay demonstrates both that the Sherman Act‟s underlying Rule of Reason standard does not trigger the Rule of Lenity and that applying lenity to narrow the Sherman Act would not serve any of the Rule of Lenity‟s asserted purposes. AUTHOR. Adjunct Professor of Advanced Antitrust Law and Economics, Georgetown University Law Center; Partner, Ropes & Gray LLP; Member, California and District of Columbia Bars. The Author would like to thank Einer Elhauge, Jon Jacobson, M. Laurence Popofsky, and Steven Salop for their helpful comments, and Rebecca Schendel Norris for her assistance. 1 THE SECTION 2 DEBATE: SHOULD LENITY PLAY A ROLE? ESSAY CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 I.
    [Show full text]