Trump v. Cook · ¶154
The President invoked the canon of constitutional avoidance in asking this Court to not interpret the Federal Reserve Act to require notice and a hearing. See Application 26–27; Reply Brief 8. Under the canon of constitutional avoidance, this Court does “not read the statute in a way” that renders it “unconstitutional if we can reasonably read it otherwise.” Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., 606 U. S. 748, 775 (2025). So, “where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hud son Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909). Thus, if the Court’s interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act would render it unconstitutional, then the Court must avoid that interpretation so long as another…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.