purposivism

Purposivism, in legal theory, is a method of statutory interpretation that prioritizes the underlying purpose of a statute. Proponents maintain that the meaning of the text is best understood in light of the statute's aims and the social problem it seeks to address, and that the text should be read to fulfill that purpose rather than to follow words in isolation.

It commonly involves examining the mischief the law was intended to remedy, the structure of the statute, accompanying interpretations, and the legislative history; courts may draw on the policy goals expressed in the legislative record, the broader regulatory scheme, and anticipated consequences. This approach contrasts with textualism, which emphasizes the ordinary meaning of the words at the time of enactment and is cautious about relying on legislative history.

Historically, purposive reasoning traces to the mischief rule from English common law (Heydon's Case, 1584) and gained prominence in modern jurisdictions as a normative alternative to strict literalism. In practice, many courts articulate purposive interpretive rules in constitutional, administrative, and statutory contexts.

Advantages include alignment with statutory aims and adaptability to changing circumstances; it helps fill gaps and avoid outcomes contrary to the statute's purpose. Critics argue that it invites judicial speculation about legislative intent, can erode textual certainty, and may yield inconsistent results when history is ambiguous.

To mitigate concerns, many jurisdictions treat legislative history as one of several aids, apply it cautiously, and balance purposive interpretation with textual and semantic considerations. Purposivism remains a central thread in debates about statutory interpretation across common-law systems.