Hard Core Textualist Soft Core Textualist Purposivist

enacted text and its Starts with the text; willing to To carry out statutory purposes, look to
ordinary/public meaning at use legislative history, policy legislative history, policy goals, and
the time of enactment. canons, context to resolve broader context to inform meaning,
Avoids legislative history and ambiguity or confirm even if it departs from literal text
constitutional “values” (Uses All Intrinsic Canons
used by Hard Textualists)
Textual Intrinsic Canons Plain Meaning Rule Yes Yes: Uses All Intrinsic Yes, but easily overridden
focus on the statute’s Ordinary Meaning Yes Yes Yes-but informed by real-world context
language, grammar, and Technical Meaning Yes Yes Yes
structure—the “four Golden Rule Used narrowly: only for truly Yes Yes—avoid absurd or unjust
corners” of the text. Focus absurd results, not bad policy applications
internal to the statute, Ejusdem Generis Yes Yes Only if aligns with statutory purpose
apply when interpreting Noscitur a Sociis Yes Yes Only if aligns with statutory purpose
the statute based on its
Expressio Unius Yes Yes Yes, if consistent w/ legislative intent.
language, grammar, and
Often rejected
structure. These canons
Last Antecedent Rule Yes Yes, but rebuttable Yes, if consistent w/ legislative intent
rely entirely on intrinsic
Rule Against Surplusage Yes Yes, but also permissive of Relaxed—legislative redundancy can
evidence—i.e., the
belt-and-suspender drafts reflect emphasis, compromise
statute’s own text.
Whole Act Rule Yes Yes Yes
Whole Code Rule Yes Yes Yes
Rule Against Derogation of Other Provisions Yes Yes Yes
Grammar and Punctuation Canons Yes Yes Yes
Singular Includes Plural Canon Yes Yes Yes
Extrinsic/Pragmatic Use of Legislative History No. Not enacted, not law, Yes: Use for confirmation Yes
Canons manipulable.
Inject real-world meaning Mischief Rule / Statutory Purpose No. Too speculative. Yes
(history, policy values, Dynamic Interpretation Strongly Opposed - law Yes, Contextually Yes
external materials, means what it meant when
constitutional principles). enacted
Concerned with reading Scrivener’s Error Doctrine Yes, if error is undisputed, Yes Yes
statute in context—within facially obvious
the U.S. Code Similar Statutes/ Yes
Absurdity Doctrine Use narrowly—only if truly Yes Yes
absurd
Whole Code Rule Yes Yes
Borrowed Statute Rule Yes
Rule Against Derogation of Other Provisions Yes
Rejected Proposal Rule No, legislative failure is Yes, but only cautiously Yes
 inconclusive
Presumption Against Preemption Yes, only if federalism Yes
concerns clearly implicated
Substantive Canons Rule of Lenity Yes Yes, especially if due Yes
Policy values, process, fairness implicated
constitutional principles, Presumption Against Implied Repeals Yes
institutional assumptions: Presumption Against Retroactivity Yes Yes
apply to resolve ambiguity Presumption Against Preemption Yes Yes
towards preferred Federalism Clear Statement Rule Yes Yes
outcomes. Major Questions Doctrine Yes, only if clear in text Yes Yes
Constitutional Avoidance Canon Yes, only Weak form Yes
Continuity Canons Presumption of Statutory Continuity Yes Yes
Ensure consistency across Presumption Against Implied Repeals Yes
its legislation and legal Whole Code Rule Yes Yes
system (across statutes, Presumption of Consistent Usage Yes Yes Yes
across time). Use when
Presumption of Meaningful Variation Yes Yes
statute interacts with
Presumption of Common Law Continuity Yes Yes
earlier law, uses repeated
terms, or reflects historical Rule Against Derogation of Other Provisions Yes
legal context. Clarify In Pari Materia Yes
ambiguous terms through Borrowed Statute rule
reference to prior/parallel
usage. Useful for
amended, re-enacted, or
related statutes.