Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 3

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

3 

Syllabus 

take  as  grammatical  objects  records,  documents,  or  things  used  to
record or preserve information, such as logbooks or hard drives.  See 
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575. 

Use  of  traditional  tools  of  statutory  interpretation  to  examine 
markers  of  congressional  intent  within  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  and 
§1519  itself  thus  call  for  rejection  of  an  aggressive  interpretation  of
“tangible object.” 

Furthermore, the meaning of “record, document, or thing” in a pro-
vision of the 1962 Model Penal Code (MPC) that has been interpreted 
to prohibit tampering with any kind of physical evidence is not a reli-
able  indicator  of  the  meaning  Congress  assigned  to  “record,  docu-
ment, or tangible object” in  §1519.  There are significant differences 
between the offense described by the MPC provision and the offense 
created by §1519.  Pp. 10–18.

(c) Finally, if recourse to traditional tools of statutory construction 
leaves  any  doubt  about  the  meaning  of  “tangible  object”  in  §1519,  it
would be appropriate to invoke the rule of lenity.  Pp. 18–19.

JUSTICE  ALITO  concluded  that  traditional  rules  of  statutory  con-
struction  confirm  that  Yates  has  the  better  argument.    Title  18 
U. S. C. §1519’s list of nouns, list of verbs, and title, when combined, 
tip the case in favor of Yates.  Applying the canons noscitur a sociis 
and  ejusdem  generis  to  the  list  of  nouns—“any  record,  document,  or 
tangible object”—the term “tangible object” should refer to something
similar to records or documents.  And while many of §1519’s verbs— 
“alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a
false  entry  in”—could  apply  to  far-flung  nouns  such  as  salamanders 
or sand dunes, the term “makes a false entry in” makes no sense out-
side of filekeeping.  Finally, §1519’s title—“Destruction, alteration, or
falsification  of  records  in  Federal  investigations  and  bankruptcy”—
also points toward filekeeping rather than fish.  Pp. 1–4. 

GINSBURG, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an 
opinion,  in  which  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  and  BREYER  and  SOTOMAYOR,  JJ., 
joined.  ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.  KAGAN, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, 
JJ., joined.