3 . At the administrative appeal from the denial of benefits, Chief Judge Kozinski found that the FEHB statute confers on the OPM the discretion to extend health benefits to same-sex couples by interpreting the terms "family members” and "member of the family” to set a floor, not a ceiling, to coverage eligibility. (SAC, Ex. B at 2-3.) The Court finds this reasoning unpersuasive. Where the statute unambiguously defines a term such as "member of family” to mean spouse (or dependent child under 22 years old), that definition controls to the exclusion of any meaning that is not explicitly stated in the definition. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 393 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 675, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979); see also TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28-29, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (<HOLDING>). DOMA offers the same clarity and defines
holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous recognizing timehonored precept of expressio unius est exclusio alterius   the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other holding that maxim of expression of one implies exclusion of another is aid to determine legislative intent