Yates v. United States (2015)

[Geoffrey Howe]

Time for some statutory interpretation I think.

Yates v. United States,  574 U.S. 528

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes it a federal crime to conceal, destroy etc. any 'record, document or tangible object' with the intent to impede a federal investigation.

Petitioner was a fisherman who was caught catching (sorry) undersized fish and was told by an officer to put the fish aside. He threw them overboard.

The question is whether a fish is a 'tangible object' within the meaning of SOX. It is worth noting that SOX is about corporate accountability.

Applying noscitur a sociis, Justice Ginsburg held that a fish was clearly not what was meant here; rather it mainly applied to financial documents.

Justice Kagan, dissenting, argued that a fish is by all normal definitions a 'tangible object,'  and so covered by SOX.



I'm surprised Breyer didn't write the majority opinion. This is the sort of thing he seems to love.

[Geoffrey Howe]

A tangible object is a tangible object. Perhaps the legislators did not intend such a meaning, but the Court has admitted, time after time, that they ought not read legislative intention into law.

Really? Some have argued this, but it is by no means a settled matter.

[Geoffrey Howe]

A tangible object is a tangible object. Perhaps the legislators did not intend such a meaning, but the Court has admitted, time after time, that they ought not read legislative intention into law.

I remain at a loss as to how one would "falsify" or "make a false entry in" a red grouper.

18 U.S.C. §1518 makes it a federal to crime to 'knowingly alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify, or make a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence" a federal investigation.

This is effectively what petitioner did by throwing the fish into the sea.

[Geoffrey Howe]

A tangible object is a tangible object. Perhaps the legislators did not intend such a meaning, but the Court has admitted, time after time, that they ought not read legislative intention into law.

I remain at a loss as to how one would "falsify" or "make a false entry in" a red grouper.

18 U.S.C. §1518 makes it a federal to crime to 'knowingly alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify, or make a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence" a federal investigation.

This is effectively what petitioner did by throwing the fish into the sea.

The verbs are relevant to determining what "tangible object" means.

So what do the preceding verbs (including the bolded) refer to?

[Geoffrey Howe]

I remain at a loss as to how one would "falsify" or "make a false entry in" a red grouper.

18 U.S.C. §1518 makes it a federal to crime to 'knowingly alter, destroy, mutilate, conceal, cover up, falsify, or make a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence" a federal investigation.

This is effectively what petitioner did by throwing the fish into the sea.

The verbs are relevant to determining what "tangible object" means.

So what do the preceding verbs (including the bolded) refer to?

Records.

And why not documents and tangible objects?