Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 499

524US2

Unit: $U93

[09-11-00 13:25:42] PAGES PGT: OPIN

454

CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Opinion of Scalia, J.

review provision, which extends that special procedure to
“[a]ny Member of Congress or any individual adversely
affected by [the Act].”
§ 692. With the exception of Mike
Cranney, a natural person, the appellees—corporations, co-
operatives, and governmental entities—are not “individuals”
under any accepted usage of that term. Worse still, the ﬁrst
provision of the United States Code conﬁrms that insofar as
this word is concerned, Congress speaks English like the rest
of us: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress,
unless the context indicates otherwise . . . the wor[d] ‘person’
.
. include[s] corporations, companies, associations, ﬁrms,
partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as
1 U. S. C. § 1 (emphasis added). And doubly
individuals.”
worse, one of the deﬁnitional provisions of this very Act
expressly distinguishes “individuals” from “persons.” A
tax law does not create a “limited tax beneﬁt,” it says, so
long as

.

“any difference in the treatment of persons is based

solely on—

“(I) in the case of businesses and associations, the

size or form of the business or association involved;

“(II) in the case of individuals, general demographic
conditions, such as income, marital status, number of de-
pendents, or tax return ﬁling status . . . .” 2 U. S. C.
§ 691e(9)(B)(iii) (1994 ed., Supp. II) (emphasis added).

The Court majestically sweeps the plain language of the
statute aside, declaring that “[t]here is no plausible reason
why Congress would have intended to provide for such
special treatment of actions ﬁled by natural persons and to
have precluded entirely jurisdiction over comparable cases
Indeed, the
brought by corporate persons.” Ante, at 429.
Court says, it would be “absurd” for Congress to have done
so.
Ibid. But Congress treats individuals more favorably
than corporations and other associations all the time. There
is nothing whatever extraordinary—and surely nothing so