Product Code Database
In law, desuetude (; , ) is a doctrine that causes , similar legislation, or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of Unenforced law or lapse of time. It is what happens to laws that are not when they become Obsolescence. It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.
The policy of inserting Sunset provision into a constitution or charter of rights (as in Canada since 1982) or into regulations and other delegated/subordinate legislation made under an act (as in Australia since the early 1990s) can be regarded as a statutory codification of this jus commune doctrine.Christian Walter (2025). 9783540212256, Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH & Co.. ISBN 9783540212256
It may, however, have validity as a doctrine in defense of penal prosecution. In 1825, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to enforce the traditional punishment of Cucking stool for women convicted as , stating that "total disuse of any civil institution for ages past, may afford just and rational objections against disrespected and superannuated ordinances." Wright v. Crane, 13 Serg. & Rawle 220, 228 (Pa. 1825).
The seminal modern case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992). In that case, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that penal statutes may become void under the doctrine of desuetude if:
This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in State ex rel. Canterbury v. Blake, 584 S.E.2d 512 (W. Va. 2003). Canterbury v. Blake West Virginia Judiciary website
Though there is no barrier to prosecutors (or other responsible officials) beginning enforcement of a long-disregarded law anew, the fact that a law has long gone unenforced may present a bar to standing in a suit to prevent its future enforcement. In Poe v. Ullman, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Connecticut's ban on birth control, writing:
The undeviating policy of nullification by Connecticut of its anti-contraceptive laws throughout all the long years that they have been on the statute books bespeaks more than prosecutorial paralysis ... "Deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy ..." – or not carrying it out – "are often tougher and truer law than the dead words of the written text." Poe v. Ullman FindLaw
Shortly thereafter, Connecticut's birth control law was again enforced, giving a plaintiff standing to have it struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut. Griswold v. Connecticut Legal Information Institute
|
|
