Bright-line rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bright-line rule, or bright-line test, is a term generally used in law which describes a clearly defined rule or standard, comprised of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application.

Bright-line rules are usually standards established by courts in legal precedent or by legislatures in statutory provisions. Bright-line rules are often contrasted with "squishy" balancing tests, where a result is dependent on weighing several factors; which could lead to inconsistent application of law, reduce objectivity.

In the United States, there is much scholarly legal debate between those favoring bright-line and those favoring balancing tests. While some legal scholars, such as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have expressed a strong preference for bright-line rules, critics often argue that bright-line rules are over-simplistic and can lead to harsh and unjust results. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer noted that there are circumstances in which the application of bright-line rules would be inappropriate, stating that "no single set of legal rules can ever capture the ever changing complexity of human life."^[1] Over the course of the last three decades many bright-line rules previously established in U.S. jurisprudence have been replaced with balancing tests.^{[citation needed]}

Contents 1 Examples of bright-line rules 2 Notable cases containing bright-line rules 3 References 4 External link

[edit] Examples of bright-line rules

• Statutory rape laws - In all U.S. states, sexual intercourse with a minor is a crime.^[2] In most states, the age of the victim and the age of the accused are the only relevant factors determinative of guilt or innocence. Because it is a bright-line rule, there is no balancing test to examine factors such as mistake of the accused, the misrepresentation of age by the minor, or the minor's consent to sexual intercourse.

[edit] Notable cases containing bright-line rules

• Miranda v. Arizona
• Goldberg v. Kelly
• Storer Doctrine
• Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films
• SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947)
• National Petroleum Refiners Assn. v. FTC, 482 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 951 (1974)
• Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983)
• Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988)
• Sameena, Inc. v. U.S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148 9th Cir. (1998)

[edit] References

1. ^ 2006 Supreme Court case, Georgia v. Randolph, Breyer's concurrence.
2. ^ http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm

[edit] External link

• Language Log Discussion of the phrase, with examples and history