aMICUS BRIEF APPLIES LINGUISTICS TO INTERPRETING STATUTES
Tighe Patton has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the use of linguistics (the science of language) in interpreting statutes. The brief is available here. Links to the lower-court decision and to the other briefs are below.
The brief was written by Tighe Patton senior counsel Neal Goldfarb and was filed on behalf of four linguistics professors (Georgia M. Green, Ray Jackendoff, Jeffrey P. Kaplan, and Roger W. Shuy) and a professor of cognitive science who specializes in psycholinguistics (Edward Gibson). It was filed in United States v. Hayes, which the Supreme Court will hear in the fall of 2008 or the winter of 2009.
What the case is about
Hayes is a criminal case involving a federal law that prohibits the ownership of guns by anyone who has been convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” (MCDV). An MCDV is defined by statute as an offense that—
“(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and
“(ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, [or by a person having another specified relationship with the victim.]”
The case raises the question of whether a law that doesn’t deal specifically with domestic violence (for example, a statute that applies generally to all cases of assault or battery) counts as an MCDV under this definition. The government argues that it does, but the defendant argues that the only convictions that qualify are those under a statute that specifically deals with domestic violence.
Links
Court of appeals opinion
Government’s opening brief
Defendant's brief
Amicus brief by Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, and Murray
Amicus brief by National Network to End Domestic Violence et al.
Amicus brief by Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence et al.