Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Page Number: 62

Cite as:  549 U. S. ____ (2007) 

9 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

nation  of  such  agents.”  The  Court  simply  pretends  this 
half of the definition does not exist. 

The  Court’s  analysis  faithfully  follows  the  argument
advanced  by  petitioners,  which  focuses  on  the  word  “in-
cluding” in the statutory definition of “air pollutant.”  See 
Brief  for  Petitioners  13–14.    As  that  argument  goes,  any-
thing  that  follows  the  word  “including”  must  necessarily
be  a  subset  of  whatever  precedes  it.    Thus,  if  greenhouse
gases qualify under the phrase following the word “includ-
ing,”  they  must  qualify  under  the  phrase  preceding  it. 
Since greenhouse gases come within the capacious phrase 
“any  physical,  chemical,  . . .  substance  or  matter  which  is 
emitted  into  or  otherwise  enters  the  ambient  air,”  they
must  also  be  “air  pollution  agent[s]  or  combination[s]  of 
such  agents,”  and  therefore  meet  the  definition  of  “air 
pollutant[s].”

That  is  certainly  one  possible  interpretation  of  the 
statutory  definition.  The  word  “including”  can  indeed
indicate  that  what  follows  will  be  an  “illustrative”  sam-
pling  of  the  general  category  that  precedes  the  word. 
Federal  Land  Bank  of  St.  Paul  v.  Bismarck  Lumber  Co., 
314  U. S.  95,  100  (1941).    Often,  however,  the  examples 
standing alone are broader than the general category, and 
must  be  viewed  as  limited  in  light  of  that  category.  The 
Government  provides  a  helpful  (and  unanswered)  exam-
ple: “The phrase ‘any American automobile, including any 
truck  or  minivan,’  would  not  naturally  be  construed  to
encompass  a  foreign-manufactured  [truck  or]  minivan.” 
Brief  for  Federal  Respondent  34.    The  general  principle 
enunciated—that  the  speaker  is  talking  about  American 
automobiles—carries  forward  to  the  illustrative  examples
(trucks  and  minivans),  and  limits  them  accordingly,  even
though in isolation they are broader.  Congress often uses
the  word  “including”  in  this  manner.    In  28  U. S. C. 
§1782(a),  for  example,  it  refers  to  “a  proceeding  in  a  for-
eign  or  international  tribunal,  including  criminal  investi-