Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 38

10 

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

Both formulations are problematic—and not only because 
both  are  atextual.  The  first,  focused  solely  on  physical
items, would leave (c)(2) with almost no work to do.  Sub-
section (c)(1) already prohibits “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mu-
tilat[ing],  or  conceal[ing]”  documents,  records,  or  objects.
This  essentially  covers  the  waterfront  of  acts  that  impair
the integrity or availability of objects.  True, (c)(2) could also
encompass  “cover[ing]  up,  falsif[ying],  or  mak[ing]  a  false 
entry in” a record or document.  See 18 U. S. C. §1519.  But 
it seems “unlikely” that Congress used the “expansive” lan-
guage of (c)(2) “to address such narrow concerns.”  64 F. 4th, 
at 344.  The somewhat amorphous “other things” limitation
has the benefit of giving (c)(2) a wider berth, but it is un-
clear how the Court landed on it.  The term does not appear
in (c)(1) or in §1512’s surrounding subsections, which refer 
specifically  to  records,  documents,  objects,  and  testimony.
The “other things” formulation comes from the Court, not 
Congress.

The Court’s uncertainty about the relevant “common at-
tribute” is a tell that Congress did not intend to define (c)(2)
by reference to (c)(1).  Indeed, “[h]ad Congress intended to
limit  [§1512(c)(2)]’s  reach”  as  the  Court  asserts,  it  “easily 
could  have  written”  the  catchall  to  say  “otherwise  impair
the integrity or availability of records, documents, objects,
or other things for use in an official proceeding.”  Ali, 552 
U. S., at 227; see ante, at 8–9.2  It did not, and we should 
not pretend that it did. 

B 
The  Court  relies  on  statutory  context  to  “confir[m]  that 

—————— 

2 Indeed, Congress could have looked to 18 U. S. C. §1505 as a model. 
That  statute  makes  it  a  crime  to  “willfully  withhol[d],  misrepresen[t], 
remov[e]  from  any  place,  concea[l],  cove[r]  up,  destro[y],  mutilat[e],
alte[r], or by other means falsif[y] any documentary material, answers to 
written  interrogatories,  or  oral  testimony”  with  the  intent  to  obstruct 
“any civil investigative demand.”  §1505 (emphasis added).