National Air Traffic Controllers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that courts must not “interpret a provision in a manner that renders other provisions of the same statute inconsistent, meaningless or superfluous” (quoting Menuskin v. Williams, 145 F.3d 755, 768 (6th Cir. 1998))
• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.” (citation omitted)
• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.” (citation omitted)
• “Plain meaning is examined by looking at the language and design of the statute as a whole.”
• court required to give effect to each word of regulation so as not to render words meaningless or superfluous
• applying the canon against superfluity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).