Courts

Fish Of The Air? An Update On An Oddly Textual Californian Bee Suit

Personally, I think this is all part of a long con to justify a Bee Movie x Jaws crossover.

By  
on

bees-4845211_1920Interpretation — especially legal interpretation — is hard. In response, many tout textualism as a way to interpret the legal writings of foregone years for today’s circumstances. The weird thing about reading and applying words based on their definitions is that the practical implications aren’t always as clear as one would assume at the onset. Once upon a time, Jessica Simpson caught hell for confusing canned tuna for Diogenes’ man. A good more recent example of how hard it can be to word with words comes from a Californian case trying to figure out which branch of Chondrichthyes Bombus fall under. Still buzzing with legal animus, Californian courts are leaving open the potential for bees to be protected under a fishy pretense.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the state to consider protecting threatened bumblebees under a conservation law listing for fish.

The state’s high court refused to grant a review sought by farming groups of a May appellate court ruling that allowed the California Fish and Game Commission to consider granting endangered species protection to four types of bumblebees under a 1970 conservation law that included the term “invertebrates” under the definition of fish, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

A 1984 law that replaced the original act removed overall protection of invertebrates but specifically left in place protection of the Trinity bristle snail. The appellate ruling said the logic that allowed a land-living mollusk to fall under the law must be applied when it comes to bumblebees.

This isn’t the first time a literal reading of the text led to a literal (read: figurative) outcome. A classic bit of strange textualism is the case where a discussion on if a fish constituted a “tangible item.” The Court decided the answer was no, and then went on to deliver one of the most “legitimate” Seuss-isms known to man besides The Seven Lady Godivas. Be warned, that link could be considered NSFW. It really depends on your firms policies and if “naked characters” counts as “nudity.” Which may be harder to come to a clear answers in today’s age where bees may be fish and dictionaries are considered obscene.

Next up on the docket, maybe we can figure out the legal consequences of so many forms of life converging into crabdom? Given enough time, bumblebees may actually be fish proper.

California Fish Conservation Law Could Protect Bees [Press Democrat]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord™ in the Facebook group Law School Memes for Edgy T14s.  He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim, a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and by tweet at @WritesForRent.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , ,