What the Textualist Revolution in Florida Jurisprudence Means for Practitioners

In Florida, judges are big on looking at the exact words of the law when making their decisions. This is called textualism, and it’s a really important thing to know about if you’re a lawyer practicing in Florida. There’s a famous book called Reading Law that explains textualism in detail, and it’s been cited a lot by Florida’s courts. So if you’re a lawyer in Florida, it’s a good idea to learn about textualism and how to use it in your cases. When interpreting laws, focus on what the words of the law actually mean, not what the lawmakers might have meant. Avoid arguments about what the legislature intended when they made the law. Look at the entire law, not just individual parts of it, to understand its meaning. Use old dictionaries to understand the meanings of words when the law was written. But don’t rely solely on dictionaries – consider the context as well. In Florida, there are rules for interpreting laws called canons of construction, which help courts understand the meaning of a law. Recently, the Florida Supreme Court said that courts can now use these rules more freely, without first deciding if the law’s meaning is clear on its own. There are two types of canons: linguistic, which are about grammar and usage, and substantive, which are about policy and legislative intent. Textualists, like Justice Scalia, prefer linguistic canons and are wary of substantive canons because they rely on outside considerations. Some examples of substantive canons in Florida include the presumption against preemption, the liberal construction of remedial statutes, and the strict construction of statutes that change common law. While cases using these canons are still valid, lawyers in Florida should be careful about relying on them too much. In recent years, Florida judges have been more willing to reconsider old legal decisions. This means that the interpretation of laws in your case might be challenged on appeal. If your case hinges on interpreting a law, it might be a good idea to bring in a specialist in handling appeals. They can make sure that your argument is based on fundamental principles and is up to date with the latest legal trends in Florida. This will give your case the best chance of success on appeal. The Antonin Scalia Lecture Series featured a talk with Justice Elena Kagan about reading and interpreting statutes. Textualism, which is a way of interpreting laws, has been debated in the Florida Supreme Court. Some argue that the court’s adoption of textualism doesn’t have to be followed in the future, but in reality, it’s unlikely that the court would change its approach. Textualism has been referenced in various court cases in Florida, and it emphasizes the importance of the actual words in a law. When judges interpret laws, they should focus on the actual words of the law and what they mean, rather than trying to guess what the lawmakers were thinking when they made the law. Some judges believe they should consider what the lawmakers meant, but others say that’s not their job. If the words of the law can have more than one meaning, judges might look at the history of the law to help them understand what the lawmakers were trying to do. Recently, Florida courts have been moving away from using legislative history when interpreting statutes. They believe that the text of the law is the most important thing to consider. This means that judges are focusing more on what the law actually says, rather than what lawmakers may have said about it. This approach is supported by some recent court cases. The courts are also looking at the ordinary meaning of words and what people would have understood them to mean when the law was written. This means that judges are trying to figure out what the words in a law meant at the time the law was made. When judges need to understand the meaning of a word or phrase in the law, they often look at different dictionaries to compare definitions. Sometimes they even look at old medical dictionaries to help them understand terms related to workers’ compensation cases. In some cases, judges may disagree on the definition and write their own opinions about it. They may also look at past court cases and laws to help them interpret the meaning of words. Sometimes, there are different ways to interpret a law, and judges may have different opinions about it. Legal statutes should be interpreted broadly to give people access to the remedies provided by the legislature. Statutes that change common law should be interpreted strictly, and any doubts about the legislature’s intent should be in favor of the injured party. Some judges have criticized decisions that deviate from the plain text of laws in the name of access to courts. It’s important for judges to prioritize the law over previous decisions if there is a clear conflict. This information comes from a column by Nicholas P. McNamara, who is an associate at a law firm, and this column was submitted on behalf of the Appellate Practice Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/what-the-textualist-revolution-in-florida-jurisprudence-means-for-practitioners/