How did Karl Llewellyn explain conflicting methods of interpreting statutes?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

The Greek philosopher Plato — Philosophy of law Plato, marble portrait bust copied from an original of the 4th century bce; in the Capitoline Museums, Rome.

Karl Llewellyn, a central figure in American legal realism, argued that legal indeterminacy arises because authoritative sources, such as statutes, do not dictate a single, unique outcome.

He explained that this indeterminacy exists primarily because there are conflicting but equally legitimate canons of interpretation for these sources. Consequently, the same legal text can be read in multiple, contradictory ways. To illustrate this, Llewellyn pointed to two opposing principles of statutory construction that U.S. courts have historically endorsed:

"A statute cannot go beyond its text."
"To effect its purpose, a statute may be implemented beyond its text."

Because a judge can properly appeal to either of these valid canons, they possess the latitude to arrive at different interpretations of a statute's meaning. Llewellyn concluded that because legal rules and principles of reasoning do not force a specific result, judges are not strictly constrained by them. Instead, he argued that judicial decisions are often guided by nonlegal considerations, such as prevailing norms within a specific commercial culture or the judge's own background and values.1