Opinion analysis: A fisherman slips by sovereign prosecutors’ net

No Comment 0 View


In opinions regulating a boatload of fishing metaphors, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a sovereign rapist law opposite destroying corporate annals can't be used opposite a commercial fisherman for throwing small fish overboard to equivocate prosecution.  The statute split the Court’s 9 Justices widely on the doubt of how judges should appreciate sovereign laws.

In a four-one-four statute in Yates v. United States, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarkable in a categorical opinion that a supervision had claimed that a 2002 law “covers a waterfront, including fish from a sea” — a sweep that the Court rejected.  Justice Elena Kagan, for a 4 dissenters, wrote that a other Justices had gone on a “fishing expedition” for support for a ruling, though a bid “comes adult empty.”

Justice Ginsburg (Art Lien)

Aside from those flights of nautical rhetoric, a 3 opinions a Court released — a third was by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., clearly intending to slight a range of the outcome — will not make easy reading for typical readers.  They are filled with Latin phrases, and keen musings about modes of “statutory interpretation.”  The dual categorical opinions go on for pages in that way.

Even so, tighten students of a Court’s work will be poring over those opinions, in hunt of clues for how a Justices competence line adult when they confront a emanate of how to appreciate a denunciation Congress used in essay a new sovereign health caring law — an emanate a Justices confront subsequent Wednesday in a box of King v. Burwell.  There are, indeed, many clues here, though how they indicate on a Affordable Care Act debate is distant from clear.   The Court’s common ideological choice was scrambled this time, and that might not be a box on health care, either other influences might be during work.

The box motionless Wednesday concerned a Florida commercial fisherman, John L. Yates, who served thirty days in jail after his self-assurance for violating a territory of a supposed Sarbanes-Oxley Act — a law upheld roughly thirteen years ago to understanding with a Enron Corporation accounting scandal.  That part concerned prosecutors’ claims, among others, that corporate files were broken when executives began to fear rapist prosecution.

Specifically during emanate in a box was a Act’s sustenance creation it a crime to destroy or change “any record, document, or discernible object” with a aim of interference or conversion any sovereign investigation.  The Court, with Justice Alito creation a fifth opinion along with a four-Justice comparison in preference of usually a result, focused on a word “tangible object” and found that it relates usually to an intent “used to record or safety information.”   That, a statute stressed, does not embody a collection of red grouper tossed into a sea from a vessel like a Miss Katie.

The categorical opinion by Justice Ginsburg had a full support of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.  Justice Alito went along with a outcome.  Justice Elena Kagan — maybe a stream Court’s many musical author — penned a dissent, that was assimilated by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Yates had been prosecuted for destroying “tangible objects” after a fish and wildlife officer boarded his vessel and found a series of small red grouper.  Federal fishing regulations put reduce boundary on a distance of grouper that might be taken commercially.  A organisation member of Miss Katie after pronounced that a captain, Yates, had systematic a ordering of many of a small fish, so that they were no longer on house when a vessel reached pier and encountered sovereign agents.

The Wednesday outcome in plain English:

It is not odd for sovereign prosecutors to use a denunciation of a broadly worded law to pursue cases that might be really different, in contribution and circumstances, from those that had led Congress to conclude a new crime.  That is what happened Wednesday, as a Court read the “tangible objects” drop language, that a sovereign supervision had shielded before a Court as covering any earthy object, if broken or altered to try to frustrate a sovereign probe.

As interpreted by a new decision, prosecutors fundamentally will be authorised to use a law usually to understanding with a scuttling of papers and electronic files, or any other device that the user uses to record or store information.

Posted in Yates v. U.S., Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation:
Lyle Denniston,
Opinion analysis: A fisherman slips by sovereign prosecutors’ net,
SCOTUSblog (Feb. 25, 2015, 3:25 PM),

About the author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required)



Mojo Marketplace