Supreme Court of the United States
John L. Yates, Petitioner v. United States.
February 25, 2015574 U.S. 528
Summary
The Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit and held that the term “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. §1519 is limited to objects used to record or preserve information, not any physical object such as fish. The decision rests on contextual statutory construction, including noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, and rejects a broad reading.
Holding
- Whether “tangible object” in 18 U.S.C. §1519 includes fish.. A “tangible object” within §1519’s compass is limited to objects used to record or preserve information and does not include fish.
- Whether the ordinary meaning or contextual interpretation controls the meaning of “tangible object” in §1519.. Contextual interpretation controls; the ordinary dictionary definition is not dispositive where the statutory context points to a narrower meaning.
- Whether the rule of lenity applies to the interpretation of “tangible object” in §1519.. The rule of lenity does not apply because the term is not ambiguous after applying traditional tools of construction.
Docket 13-7451
Cited authorities
- 18 U.S.C. § 1519
- 116 Stat. 745
- 50 C.F.R. § 622.37
- 16 U.S.C. §§ 1857
- 50 C.F.R. § 622.37
- 16 U.S.C. § 1858
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- Fed. R. Crim. P. 16
Cited by
- Yilkal Bekele v. Lyft, Inc.
- In Re: Robert Goodrich, Debtor.
- United States v. Hector Natal A/k/a Boom Boom, Hector Morales
- Evanston Insurance Company v. Gene by Gene, Ltd.
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. William E. Mapp, Iii, Warren K. Paxton, Jr., Caleb J. White, and Servergy, Inc.
- Michael Adkins v. Thomas James Vilsack
- In Re: Laura Nellie Tavares, Debtor
- United States of America v. Lauderdale County, Mississippi Judge Veldore Young-Graham