Which interpretation rule applies when a statute's language is clear and unambiguous?

The Plain Meaning Rule applies when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. This rule dictates that if the words of a statute are straightforward and their meaning is easily understood, the court should interpret the statute according to its literal meaning. The intent is to enforce what the legislature has explicitly stated without delving into what they may have meant or intended beyond the text.

In this context, when a statute's language is clear, there is typically no need for extensive interpretation, as the meaning is evident. Courts will apply the Plain Meaning Rule to ensure that the law is interpreted as written, promoting clarity and predictability in legal proceedings. This approach upholds the principle that the language employed in statutory law should be taken at face value unless it leads to absurd or unreasonable outcomes.

Other interpretation methods, such as Strict Construction, Legislative Intent, and Historical Context, are generally employed in cases where the statute's language is ambiguous or unclear, making the application of the Plain Meaning Rule essential in straightforward situations.