AVONDALE LOCKHART, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Sotomayor, Filed March 1, 2016,
Child Pornography – 18 USC 2252(b)(2) – In the phrase “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward,” “involving a minor or ward” applies only to “abusive sexual conduct.”
In a likely homage, the Court cites Scalia’s The Interpretation of Legal Texts in analyzing this problem. Classy.
The sentence enhancement provision of 18 USC 2252(b)(2) reads:
… if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward… such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.
The question here relates to whether “involving a minor or ward” applies to “aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct” or only “abusive sexual conduct.”
Statutory Interpretation – Rule of the last antecedent – A limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows
That being said, the Court’s commentary that we apply a modifier to the recent antecedent because “it is easier” than modifying anything else might be just a tad off base
I’m not certain why the Supreme Court so frequently analyzes grammar without using actual grammatical rules. Perhaps there should be a Supreme Court Grammarian appointed by the Librarian of Congress to help them with their homework.
More logically satisfying is the Court’s analysis of the “laws of any State” phrase in context of the USC phrase and the section as a whole.
Statutory Interpretation – While statutes are read to avoid surplusage, this “does not require us to avoid surplusage at all costs. It is appropriate to tolerate a degree of surplusage.”