Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

5 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

pattern to which the noscitur canon applies, §1512(c) is not 
a  list  of  terms  that  includes  an  ambiguous  word.    So  the 
Court does not do what it does when applying noscitur: se-
lect between multiple accepted meanings of the words “ob-
structs,” “influences,” and “impedes.”  Instead, it modifies 
those words by adding an adverbial phrase: obstructs, in-
fluences or impedes by “impair[ing] the availability or in-
tegrity  for  use  in  an  official  proceeding  of  records,  docu-
ments,  or  objects.”  Ante,  at  16  (emphasis  added).  The 
ejusdem canon is an equally poor fit.  Unlike the pattern to 
which ejusdem applies, (c)(2) is “not a general or collective
term following a list of specific items to which a particular 
statutory command is applicable.”  United States v. Aguilar, 
515 U. S. 593, 615 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part).  Instead, (c)(1) and (c)(2) are “distinct
and independent prohibitions.”  Ibid.  Though they share a 
subject  and  an  adverb—“[w]hoever  corruptly”—the  two 
clauses contain different verbs that take different objects.
§1512(c).  Moreover,  (c)(1)  has  a separate  mens  rea  provi-
sion  that  further  disrupts  the  connection  between  the 
clauses. 

To my knowledge, we have never applied either of these
canons to a statute resembling §1512(c).  Rather than iden-
tify such a case, the Court invents examples of a sign at the
zoo and a football league rule.  Ante, at 5–6.  The zoo exam-
ple (“do not pet, feed, yell or throw objects at the animals,
or otherwise disturb them”) does not help, because it mim-
ics the typical ejusdem format of specific words followed by 
a catchall.  The list of specific verbs makes clear that the 
cleanup phrase (“otherwise disturb”) is limited to conduct 
that  involves  direct  interaction  with  the  animals.    But  in 
the absence of a laundry list followed by a catchall, it is hard 
to see why the ejusdem canon fits.  Ali v. Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 225 (2008) (“The absence of a list of 
specific items undercuts the inference embodied in ejusdem