What is the name of the legal principle where when something is described specifically as permissible with options A, B, and C which also means that D, E, and F are not permissible. It’s a way to describe statutory construction I think.
Not sure if this is what you’re thinking of, but one general rule of statutory interpretation is that where a section of a statute contains specific language that is missing in another section of the statute, then it is presumed that Congress intentionally meant to exclude such language. See Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 29-30 (1997) (“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”).
You may be referring to the principle of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other). This would mean that, for example, if a law said that it was illegal to carry a “semiautomatic handgun, automatic handgun, rifle, or machine gun” under certain circumstances, that law would be interpreted to not apply to revolvers or shotguns. If the legislature had intended to ban all firearms, then they would either have specifically said “firearms” or would have added an “or any other firearm” or similar clause at the end. Applying that rule would not necessarily mean that carrying a revolver or shotgun is legal, but only that that specific law does not ban it. There might be another law that bans the carrying of revolvers and shotguns.
That’s it! The exclusion thing. Thanks!
I agree, but just to nitpick, I think it is just slightly different than that. It’s clear under your hypothetical law that a person could not be charged with carrying a revolver or a shotgun, plain text and all that. I think it takes more of the form of this type of law:
“All persons over age 21 may possess liquor.” A person age 20 is arrested for possessing liquor and argues that the law doesn’t prohibit his conduct; in fact it is silent on whether those under age 21 can possess liquor. The doctrine of EUEEA would say that the legislature, by stating that those over 21 may possess liquor, has implicitly said that those under 21 may not.
An interesting case of interpretations is the Unruh Act in California, which is the state’s anti-discrimination law. I read all about this for a class term paper (that I never finished) about 15 years ago, so sorry if I don’t have cites handy or if I’m hazy on some details:
The Unruh Act is nearly identical, almost verbatim, with the similar Federal anti-discrimination law. Each law lists a bunch of specific protected classes. (I think the Unruh Act, from the start, mentioned a few additional protected classes that weren’t in the Federal law, and it’s been amended to include more classes, like sexual orientation.)
Anyway, the Federal law has been tested in Federal courts, and the state law has been tested in state courts, with differing interpretations. I guess that happens just because of what the particular judges happened to think.
The Federal law has been deemed to be exclusive, in the sense discussed in this thread. The law protects the enumerated classes, and only those.
OTOH, the classes listed in the state law have been interpreted as being just representative examples of the kinds of discrimination that is prohibited. Other classes in addition may be protected too. One specific example mentioned had to do with smokers: A landlord may not discriminate, in choosing who to rent to, against smokers. The landlord may prohibit smoking on his property, but he can’t refuse to rent to a smoker just for being a smoker.
This principle is apparently the origin for at least one meaning of the expression “The Exception that Proves the Rule”. Wikipedia traces this to a principle in Roman law, first proposed by Cicero and called exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis (the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted).