Sometimes ambiguity is present in the court’s own reasoning; for example, a judge might argue that a “reasonable” person would not be offended by sexual advances made by a fellow employee. At other...

Sometimes ambiguity is present in the court’s own reasoning; for example, a judge might argue that a “reasonable” person would not be offended by sexual advances made by a fellow employee. At other times, the court must interpret ambiguity in congressional legislation to make a legal judgment. Case 24-2 deals with the second of those judicial confrontations with ambiguity. It is important to be aware not only of the Court’s interpretation of an ambiguity, but also of the evidence it selects to support that interpretation. The very fact that an important term is ambiguous means that there might be other legitimate interpretations; thus, in judging whether you agree with the particular interpretation at hand, you must evaluate the evidence presented for it. It is also important to recognize the primary ethical norm that informed the Court’s interpretation. The following questions address those considerations.

1. What legislative ambiguity was the Court dealing with in Case 24-2? Clue: The meaning of this term is the central issue of the case.

2. Specifically, to what evidence did the Court refer to support its own interpretation of the ambiguity? Clue: Reread the paragraph immediately following the quotation from Section 14(e).

3. In supporting its strict interpretation of legislative ambiguity, the Court stated that Congress intended to leave issues of fairness up to shareholders and not judges, making full disclosure the most important consideration. In this prioritization of the liberty (of shareholders) over potentially more just outcomes (allowing judges to decide fairness), one might argue that the primary ethical norm of liberty drove the Court’s reasoning. What other primary ethical norm is implicit in this prioritization? Clue: Consider the primary ethical norm that would be damaged if judges decided fairness (especially with the inevitable increase in court cases).