Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

no  limits,  as  “ ‘[r]eally,  universally,  relations  stop  no-
where.’ ”  New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue 
Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 655 (1995) 
(quoting  H.  James,  Roderick  Hudson  xli  (New  York  ed.,
World’s Classics 1980)).  This language thus cannot be “con-
sidered in isolation,” Maracich v. Spears, 570 U. S. 48, 59 
(2013), and the Court must “go beyond the unhelpful text 
and  the  frustrating  difficulty  of  defining  [this]  key  term” 
and look to statutory context.  Travelers, 514 U. S., at 656. 
That the  phrase refers to a relationship or nexus of some 
kind is clear.  See Smith, 508 U. S., at 238 (“ ‘[I]n relation
to’ ” requires “some purpose or effect” between two things).
Yet  the  kind  of  relationship  required,  its  nature  and
strength, will be informed by context. 

The  presence  of  two  such  context-dependent  terms  ren-
ders §1028A(a)(1) doubly attuned to its surroundings.  The 
parties’  competing  readings  both  fall  within  the  range  of 
meanings of “uses” and “in relation to,” taken alone.  Resort 
to context is thus especially necessary here.4 

—————— 

4 The Government tries to head off any contextual analysis at the pass, 
urging that “uses” and “during and in relation to” in §1028A(a)(1) must
be read identically to Smith and other of this Court’s cases interpreting 
18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A).  That provision applies to “any person who, dur-
ing and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . 
uses or carries a firearm.”  One need look no further than this Court’s 
§924(c) case law to see why this argument fails.  The teaching of those 
cases is that because “use” “draws meaning from its context, . . . we will 
look not only to the word itself, but also to the statute and the [broader] 
scheme.”  Bailey  v.  United  States,  516  U. S.  137,  143  (1995).    Section 
1028A(a)(1) differs greatly from §924(c), from the thing that is “used,” to
the title, to the nature of the predicate offenses to which the enhance-
ment relates.  Words can wound, but names and numbers are not guns. 
If anything, the ubiquity of names and their vast range of “uses” makes 
the verb especially indeterminate in this context.  For that same reason, 
the Court’s decision today does not alter its §924(c) case law.