NLRB v. SW General, Inc, Docket 15-1251

Interpretation of a statute: Notwithstanding: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius:

The ordinary meaning of “notwith­standing” is “in spite of,” or “without prevention or ob­struction from or by.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1545 (1986); Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (7thed. 1999) (“Despite; in spite of ”). In statutes, the word “shows which provision prevails in the event of a clash.” Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 126–127 (2012).

A “notwithstanding” clause (…) just shows which of two or more provisions prevails in the event of a conflict.

(…) The Board relies on the “interpretive canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, ‘expressing one item of an associated group or series excludes another left unmentioned.’” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U. S. 73, 80 (2002) (quoting United States v. Vonn, 535 U. S. 55, 65 (2002)). If a sign at the entrance to a zoo says “come see the elephant, lion, hippo, and giraffe,” and a temporary sign is added saying “the giraffe is sick,” you would reasonably assume that the others are in good health.

“The force of any negative implication, however, de­pends on context.” Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 9). The expressio unius canon applies only when “circumstances support a sen­sible inference that the term left out must have been meant to be excluded.” Echazabal, 536 U. S., at 81. A “notwithstanding” clause does not naturally give rise to such an inference; it just shows which of two or more provisions prevails in the event of a conflict. Such a clause confirms rather than constrains breadth. Singling out one potential conflict might suggest that Congress thought the conflict was particularly difficult to resolve, or was quite likely to arise. But doing so generally does not imply anything about other, unaddressed conflicts, much less that they should be resolved in the opposite manner.

Suppose a radio station announces: “We play your favor­ite hits from the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. Notwithstanding the fact that we play hits from the ’60s, we do not play music by British bands.” You would not tune in expecting to hear the 1970s British band “The Clash” any more than the 1960s “Beatles.” The station, after all, has announced that “we do not play music by British bands.” The “not­withstanding” clause just establishes that this applies even to music from the ’60s, when British bands were prominently featured on the charts. No one, however, would think the station singled out the ’60s to convey implicitly that its categorical statement “we do not play music by British bands” actually did not apply to the ’70s and ’80s.

Secondary sources: L. Filson, The Legislative Drafter’s Desk Reference 222 (1992); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1545 (1986); Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (7thed. 1999); A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 126–127 (2012).

(U.S.S.C., March 21, 2017, NLRB v. SW General, Inc, Docket 15-1251, C.J. Roberts).

Règles d'interprétation d'une loi au sens formel:

Interprétation du terme "notwithstanding" et de l'aphorisme "expressio unius est exclusio alterius".

Dans une loi, le terme "notwithstanding" indique laquelle de deux ou de plusieurs dispositions l'emporte en cas de conflit.

S'agissant du principe "expressio unius est exclusio alterius", soit l'expression de l'un exclut l'autre (l'autre n'étant pas mentionné), la Cour précise que la force d'une implication négative dépend du contexte. Ce principe ne s'applique que si les circonstances supportent l'inférence que le terme exclu doit avoir été intentionnellement exclu. Or le terme "notwithstanding" n'implique pas en lui-même une telle inférence. Ce terme se limite à indiquer quelle disposition s'applique en cas de conflit. Mettre ainsi en évidence un conflit potentiel peut suggérer que le Congrès estimait le conflit particulièrement difficile à résoudre, ou estimait vraisemblable la survenance de ce conflit. En légiférant ainsi, le Congrès ne se prononce pas au sujet d'autres conflits.