The avoidance canon directs that where a statute is susceptible to two readings, one of which raises serious constitutional doubts, the court should adopt the other.
Two forms. Classical avoidance applies where one reading would be unconstitutional. Modern avoidance applies where one reading merely raises serious doubt, which is a broader and more criticised version.
Limits. The construction adopted must be fairly possible. A court may not rewrite a statute to save it, and where the text admits only one reading, the constitutional question must be faced.
Related principles. Courts decide constitutional questions only when necessary; they decide on the narrowest available ground; and they do not formulate a rule broader than the facts require.
Severability. Where a provision is invalid, the remainder stands if it is capable of functioning independently and the legislature would have enacted it alone. A severability clause is evidence of intent but is not conclusive.
Consequences for advocacy. A litigant with both a statutory and a constitutional argument should lead with the statutory one, because the court would rather decide there. A litigant defending a statute should offer a narrowing construction that resolves the constitutional concern.
For drafters. Ambiguity that invites avoidance produces a statute meaning something other than what was intended.