What does the plain-meaning rule assert regarding a statute's interpretation?

The plain-meaning rule asserts that when interpreting a statute, a court should rely on the statute's clear wording. This rule emphasizes that if the language of the law is straightforward and unambiguous, the court should apply that language as it is, without delving into external factors like legislative history or intent. The principle is rooted in the idea that the words of a statute should have their ordinary meaning, and it promotes consistency and predictability in legal interpretation by encouraging adherence to the clear expressions of the law as written by the legislature.

This approach minimizes speculation about what lawmakers may have intended beyond the text and focuses on the language used, ensuring that statutes are applied based on their explicit terms. Hence, when a statute’s wording is clear and comprehensible, it should be interpreted as such, directly leading to the conclusion that option C is the correct answer.