This morning, the Supreme Court hears argument in Rimini Street v. Oracle, a case which involves “whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of ‘full costs’ . . . to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs . . . or also authorizes non-taxable costs . . . .” I have a new post over at the Federalist Society Review exploring the key arguments in the case. It should prove to be an interesting decision with important lessons and takeaways on statutory interpretation, particularly for textualists. As I say in the piece,
Dictionaries alone cannot always decide questions of statutory interpretation, even under the plain meaning rule. Construing text requires reading it in its full context, taking into consideration any relevant historical or jurisprudential glosses to the text. In this case, both sides invoke fundamental principles of statutory interpretation. But, reading law here in holistic fashion, Rimini Street makes better sense of Section 505’s “full costs” when viewed in its full context.
Time will tell how the Court feels about the matter!