Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why might a court depart from the literal wording of a statute?

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

President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Medicare Bill at a table beside former President Harry S. Truman, with Lady Bird Johnson and others standing behind them. — Legislation Former U.S. president Harry S. Truman (right) looking on as U.S. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Medicare bill at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri, July 30, 1965.

Courts may depart from the literal wording of a statute primarily to avoid results that appear absurd or unjust. While the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to discover and give effect to the intention of the legislature, literal adherence to text can sometimes conflict with this objective.1

When courts move away from a literal reading, they may:
* Exclude a specific situation from a statute even if the text plainly includes it.1
* Apply a statute to persons or situations not explicitly covered by the law to address an inadvertent omission.1

In these instances, the court is not strictly interpreting the existing text but is instead establishing its own rule based on policy considerations. This process is distinct from standard interpretation, which typically relies on rules of grammar, syntax, and context to resolve reasonable doubts about a statute's meaning.12