Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

4 

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29 (1997)).  And “ ‘[w]here Con-
gress includes particular language in one section of a stat-
ute  but  omits  it  in  another  section  of  the  same  Act,’ ”  we 
generally presume that Congress did so intentionally.  Rus-
sello  v.  United  States,  464  U. S.  16,  23  (1983)  (quoting 
United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Bo,  472  F. 2d  720,  722  (CA5 
1972) (per curiam)).  The Court’s reasons for departing from 
these rules are thin. 

1 
The Court begins with the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem 
generis  canons.    Ante,  at  5.  The  noscitur  canon  counsels 
that “words grouped in a list should be given related mean-
ings.”  A.  Scalia  &  B.  Garner,  Reading  Law  §31,  p.  195
(2012)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  It  is  particu-
larly useful when interpreting “ ‘a word [that] is capable of 
many  meanings.’ ”    McDonnell  v.  United  States,  579  U. S. 
550, 569 (2016) (quoting Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 
U. S.  303,  307  (1961)).    See,  e.g.,  Gustafson  v.  Alloyd  Co., 
513 U. S. 561, 573–575 (1995) (employing the canon to in-
terpret “communication” in the statutory list “ ‘prospectus, 
notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or communication’ ”).  
The ejusdem canon applies when “a catchall phrase” follows
“an enumeration of specifics, as in dogs, cats, horses, cattle, 
and other animals.”  Scalia & Garner §32, at 199.  We often 
interpret the catchall phrase to “embrace only objects simi-
lar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding 
specific words.”  Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 
105, 115 (2001).  See, e.g., Washington State Dept. of Social 
and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 
U. S. 371, 375, 385 (2003) (employing the canon to construe 
the general term in the statutory list “ ‘execution, levy, at-
tachment, garnishment, or other legal process’ ”). 

These canons are valuable tools.  But applying either to 
(c)(2) is like using a hammer to pound in a screw—it looks 
like it might work, but using it botches the job.  Unlike the