Reading Law by {author}: summary and why it matters

What it argues

The authors present textualism as the proper way to read legal documents: a text should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means, with attention to its ordinary meaning at the time it was adopted. They set out fifty-seven canons, or principles, including the presumption against ineffectiveness, the whole-text canon, the presumption of consistent usage, the surplusage canon and the rule of lenity.

For each, they supply examples and criticisms. They also list what they call false notions, such as the idea that legislative history shows intent or that courts should read a law according to its purpose when the text is plain. They argue that a fair reading is consistent with democratic government because it confines judges to what the legislature has enacted.

The book is a long reference with a conversational style and a good deal of humor.

Why it matters

It is widely cited by courts, and it set out textualism in a form that lawyers can use in daily practice. Critics from the purposivist side argue that the canons are applied selectively, a point the authors address.

About the author

Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, the editor of Black's Law Dictionary and author of books on legal writing, spent years on the project and also co-wrote a companion book on the technique of brief writing and oral argument. Reading Law was published in 2012 and has been cited in many opinions of federal and state courts.

Who should read it

Lawyers, judges and students; also readers who like the craft of language.