What is the test for interpreting a statute in a way that avoids absurdity?

"It is, to be sure, well-established that [a] statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids absurd results. " Sec. Exch. Commn v. Rosenthal , 650 F.3d 156, 162 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Venturella , 391 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2004) ). That being said, a statute is not "absurd" merely because it produces results that a court or litigant finds anomalous or perhaps unwise. To the contrary, courts should look beyond a statutes text under the canon against absurdity "only where the result of applying the plain

[919 F.3d 706]