The judges in this case—both majority and dissenting—are engaging in what is called statutory construction; they are determining the outcome of the case by trying to understand the meaning of the law passed by New York’s legislature. Note the differences between them. One gives the statute a “broad” reading, the other gives it a “narrow” one.

Which is which? What tools do the two judges use to interpret the law? Which interpretation do you think is most in keeping with the intent of the legislators?