Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 43.0

16 

YATES v. UNITED STATES 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

B 
The  concurring  opinion  is  a  shorter,  vaguer  version  of
the plurality’s.  It relies primarily on the noscitur a sociis 
and  ejusdem  generis  canons,  tries  to  bolster  them  with 
§1519’s  “list  of  verbs,”  and  concludes  with  the  section’s
title.  See supra, at 7–8, 12–13, 14–15 (addressing each of 
those arguments).  (Notably, even the concurrence puts no
stock  in  the  plurality’s  section-number  and  superfluity 
claims.)  From  those  familiar  materials,  the  concurrence 
arrives at the following definition: “ ‘tangible object’ should 
mean  something  similar  to  records  or  documents.”    Ante, 
at  4  (opinion  of  ALITO,  J.).    In  amplifying  that  purported
guidance,  the  concurrence  suggests  applying  the  term
“tangible  object”  in  keeping  with  what  “a  neighbor,  when
asked  to  identify  something  similar  to  record  or  docu-
ment,” might answer.  Ante, at 1.  “[W]ho wouldn’t raise an
eyebrow,”  the  concurrence  wonders,  if  the  neighbor  said
“crocodile”?  Ante,  at  1–2.    Courts  sometimes  say,  when
explaining the Latin maxims, that the “words of a statute
should  be  interpreted  consistent  with  their  neighbors.”
See, e.g., United States v. Locke, 529 U. S. 89, 105 (2000).
The concurrence takes that expression literally. 

But §1519’s meaning should not hinge on the odd game
of  Mad  Libs  the  concurrence  proposes.  No  one  reading 
§1519 needs to fill in a blank after the words “records” and 
“documents.”  That  is  because  Congress,  quite  helpfully,
already  did  so—adding  the  term  “tangible  object.”    The 
issue in this case is what that term means.  So if the con-
currence wishes to ask its neighbor a question, I’d recom-
mend a more pertinent one: Do you think a fish (or, if the
concurrence prefers, a crocodile) is a “tangible object”?  As 
to  that  query,  “who  wouldn’t  raise  an  eyebrow”  if  the 
neighbor said “no”?

In  insisting  on  its  different  question,  the  concurrence
neglects  the  proper  function  of  catchall  phrases  like  “or 
tangible object.”  The reason Congress uses such terms is