Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  574 U. S. ____ (2015) 

7 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

provisions  enacted  at  the  same  time,  in  particular  §1520 
and §1512(c)(1), see infra, at 10, 12–13.  Section 1519, he 
maintains, targets not all manner of evidence, but records,
documents,  and  tangible  objects  used  to  preserve  them, 
e.g.,  computers,  servers,  and  other  media  on  which  infor-
mation is stored. 

We agree with Yates and reject the Government’s unre-
strained reading.  “Tangible object” in §1519, we conclude, 
is better read to cover only objects one can use to record or
preserve information, not all objects in the physical world. 

A 
The  ordinary  meaning  of  an  “object”  that  is  “tangible,”
as stated in dictionary definitions, is “a discrete . . . thing,” 
Webster’s  Third  New  International  Dictionary  1555 
(2002),  that  “possess[es]  physical  form,”  Black’s  Law  Dic-
tionary  1683  (10th  ed.  2014).    From  this  premise,  the
Government concludes that “tangible object,” as that term
appears  in  §1519,  covers  the  waterfront,  including  fish
from the sea. 

Whether  a  statutory  term  is  unambiguous,  however,
does not turn solely on dictionary definitions of its compo-
nent  words.  Rather,  “[t]he  plainness  or  ambiguity  of
statutory language is determined [not only] by reference to 
the language itself, [but as well by] the specific context in 
which  that  language  is  used,  and  the  broader  context  of
the  statute  as  a  whole.”  Robinson  v.  Shell  Oil  Co.,  519 
U. S. 337, 341 (1997).  See also Deal v. United States, 508 
U. S.  129,  132  (1993)  (it  is  a  “fundamental  principle  of 
statutory  construction  (and,  indeed,  of  language  itself) 
that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isola-
tion,  but  must  be  drawn  from  the  context  in  which  it  is 
used”).  Ordinarily,  a  word’s  usage  accords  with  its  dic-
tionary  definition.  In  law  as  in  life,  however,  the  same 
words,  placed  in  different  contexts,  sometimes  mean  dif-
ferent things.