Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 31

Cite as:  572 U. S. ____ (2014) 

7 

SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment 

the  Court  shoves  down  the  throat  of  a  resisting  statute
today.  Who in the world would have thought that a defini-
tion  is  inoperative  if  it  contradicts  ordinary  meaning?
When this statute was enacted, there was not yet a “Bond 
presumption” to that effect—though presumably Congress
will have to take account of the Bond  presumption in the 
future,  perhaps  by  adding  at  the  end  of  all  its  definitions
that  depart  from  ordinary  connotation  “and  we  really 
mean it.” 

C.  The Statute as Judicially Amended 

I  suspect  the  Act  will  not  survive  today’s  gruesome 
surgery.  A  criminal  statute  must  clearly  define  the  con-
duct  it  proscribes.    If  it  does  not  “ ‘give  a  person  of  ordi-
nary  intelligence  fair  notice’ ”  of  its  scope,  United  States 
v.  Batchelder,  442  U.  S.  114,  123  (1979),  it  denies  due 
process.

The  new  §229(a)(1)  fails  that  test.  Henceforward,  a 
person  “shall  be  fined  . . .  ,  imprisoned  for  any  term  of
years, or both,” §229A(a)(1)—or, if he kills someone, “shall 
be punished by death or imprisoned for life,” §229A(a)(2)—
whenever  he  “develop[s],  produce[s],  otherwise  acquire[s],
transfer[s]  directly  or  indirectly,  receive[s],  stockpile[s], 
retain[s],  own[s],  possess[es],  or  use[s],  or  threaten[s]  to
use,” §229(a)(1), any chemical “of the sort that an ordinary 
person would associate with instruments of chemical  war­
fare,”  ante,  at  15  (emphasis  added).    Whether  that  test  is 
satisfied,  the  Court  unhelpfully  (and  also  illogically)  ex-
plains, depends not only on the “particular chemicals that
the  defendant  used”  but  also  on  “the  circumstances  in 
which  she  used  them.”    Ibid.  The  “detergent  under  the
kitchen sink” and “the stain remover in the laundry room”
are  apparently  out,  ante,  at  16—but  what  if  they  are 
deployed  to  poison  a  neighborhood  water  fountain?  Poi-
soning  a  goldfish  tank  is  also  apparently  out,  ante,  at  17, 
but what if the fish belongs to a Congressman or Governor