Arguendo
Literal meaning: “For the sake of argument”
What does the Latin term "Arguendo" mean in law?
Arguendo indicates that a proposition or assumption is being accepted temporarily for the purposes of argument, without conceding that it is true. When a court or litigant proceeds arguendo, they assume the truth of a contested point in order to analyze the legal consequences that would follow, often to demonstrate that even if the opposing side's factual or legal premise is correct, the conclusion they seek does not follow. This technique is commonly employed in appellate opinions where a court need not resolve a disputed issue because the outcome is the same regardless. It also appears in legal briefs where counsel makes alternative arguments, accepting the adversary's premise hypothetically to show it is legally insufficient.
Source: Procedure · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Arguendo indicates that a proposition or assumption is being accepted temporarily for the purposes of argument, without conceding that it is true. When a court or litigant proceeds arguendo, they assume the truth of a contested point in order to analyze the legal consequences that would follow, often to demonstrate that even if the opposing side's factual or legal premise is correct, the conclusion they seek does not follow. This technique is commonly employed in appellate opinions where a court need not resolve a disputed issue because the outcome is the same regardless. It also appears in legal briefs where counsel makes alternative arguments, accepting the adversary's premise hypothetically to show it is legally insufficient.
How It's Used
Judges use arguendo in written opinions to bypass contested factual or legal questions that need not be resolved. Attorneys employ the technique in briefs and oral argument to present alternative theories, strengthening their position by showing that even under the opponent's best-case scenario, the result favors their client.
Example Sentences
Assuming arguendo that the defendant's version of events is true, the court held that the conduct still constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
Even accepting arguendo that the statute of limitations had not expired, the plaintiff's claim would fail on the merits for lack of proximate causation.
The appellate panel noted that, proceeding arguendo on the constitutional question, the regulation would still be invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.