Skip to content Skip to footer

Dictionaries and the Law – Hunting, Poaching, and the Right to Food

The Regulation Court’s new determination in Parker v. Office of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife is fascinating—it is a rare occasion when the Courtroom has been termed on to interpret and utilize a new constitutional provision. The Maine Constitution has experienced reasonably few amendments, but in 2021 Maine voters authorised a “Right to Foodstuff Modification.” Parker involved a obstacle to Maine’s Sunday searching regulation prohibition under the new amendment.

As is pertinent right here, the amendment gives that “[a]ll persons have a normal, inherent and unalienable right to food, like the ideal to … grow, increase, harvest, develop and eat the meals of their very own choosing” for specified uses, which include nourishment. It then enumerates limitations on this suitable, conditioning the ideal on the prerequisite that the unique not dedicate “trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of personal property rights, general public lands or all-natural sources.”

The dilemma in the scenario was no matter if the Maine regulation banning hunting on Sundays infringes on this appropriate. In an attention-grabbing ruling, the Legislation Court claimed it did not. After reaching the clear-cut conclusion that the plaintiffs could existing a justiciable claim presented the State’s denial of their ask for for a Sunday hunting allow, the Court docket took up the merits—and in so accomplishing, lifted some intriguing inquiries.

Initially, the Courtroom accorded the Sunday looking statute a presumption of constitutionality—even even though the statute predated the constitutional amendment. But why? Typically the presumption accords the Legislature credit history for trying to find to act in accordance with present constitutional limits. That rationale, the Courtroom acknowledged, did not implement. The Courtroom alternatively proposed that there are other causes for in accordance this presumption, but relied on situations stating that facial constitutional difficulties are disfavored because they absence robust factual information and pose the threat of overbroad rulings. Those people issues look to go to the unique motor vehicle for the problem, not the presumed validity of the enactment by itself. Is not the right response, then, to utilize the proper typical for facial challenges fairly than implement a presumption? That issue is at least debatable.

Second, the Court’s examination of the amendment’s language raises exciting interpretive questions. The Court concluded that the time period “harvest” includes searching. The Court buttressed this summary by citing many authorities, such as dictionary definitions, its individual prior precedent, and statutory definitions. Primarily based on these authorities, the Courtroom reasoned, the modification does consist of a correct to hunt. The Courtroom then observed that this appropriate is subject matter to convey limitations, which include that the appropriate does not include things like participating in “poaching.” Citing dictionary definitions only, the Court then reasoned that the expression “poaching” consists of any illegal looking. Therefore, the Courtroom held that the ideal to hunt does not contain the ideal to hunt on Sundays, mainly because the Legislature has designed looking on Sundays unlawful.

1 could picture a prospective criticism—does the reasoning in Parker render the suitable to hunt below the modification meaningless? If the modification is meant to guard the suitable to hunt, but does not circumscribe any regulation that renders looking illegal, does the amendment defend looking at all?

There are controversial critiques of the Court’s reliance on dictionary definitions. Two definitions cited, from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and Webster’s II New School Dictionary, counsel a broad definition of the phrase that involves any unlawful using of video game. But query whether that is the normal knowledge of the expression. Several dictionaries, including Merriam Webster and Cambridge, propose a primary which means of “poaching” that relates to illegality in the fashion in which the sport is taken—i.e., getting activity while encroaching on the land of yet another. Certainly, the Court’s citation to Black’s Legislation Dictionary, which defines poaching as the unlawful having of activity “on another’s land,” supports this normal examining. At the pretty least, the availability of a narrower popular indicating indicates the will need for very careful reliance on dictionaries, like assessment of primary definitions and the word’s context.

As Justice Scalia and Brian Garner observe in Looking through Law, the availability of a number of meanings for common text spots good importance on assessing not just to dictionary definitions but also the word’s context to decide its most probably this means. Here, there are numerous hints at the word’s indicating to be identified in the amendment’s context. The amendment by itself references poaching and “other abuses of non-public residence legal rights, public lands or natural means.” The reference to “other abuses of non-public property” renders a definition of “poaching” that needs some form of trespass additional probably. And broader context may well propose the exact as described previously mentioned, a reading of “poaching” that includes any law rendering looking unlawful appears to be (at very first blush) to render the modification round, and so meaningless at least in part—a result that is commonly discouraged. Of course, there may possibly be rejoinders, but Parker does not supply them.

As Parker illustrates, constitutional and statutory interpretation calls for cautious, contextual evaluation, and it is incumbent on lawyers to equip the Court docket with complete arguments. Which is what a fantastic appellate brief—whether by a get together or by an intrigued social gathering filing an amicus—is for. But for now, Parker solutions a slender question below the Correct to Foodstuff modification, whilst leaving lots of other queries about its scope and software open.

©2024 Pierce Atwood LLP. All legal rights reserved.
by: Joshua D. Dunlap of Pierce Atwood LLP

For extra news on State Structure Interpretation, stop by the NLR Constitutional Regulation portion.

The post Dictionaries and the Law – Searching, Poaching, and the Suitable to Food appeared first on The National Law Forum.