Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

6 

FACEBOOK, INC. v. DUGUID 

Opinion of the Court 

students  from  completing  homework  altogether,  with  or
without online support.

Here,  the  series-qualifier  canon  recommends  qualifying
both  antecedent  verbs,  “store”  and  “produce,”  with  the 
phrase “using a random or sequential number generator.” 
That recommendation produces the most natural construc-
tion, as confirmed by other aspects of §227(a)(1)(A)’s text.

To begin, the modifier at issue immediately follows a con-
cise,  integrated  clause:  “store  or  produce  telephone  num-
bers to be called.”  See Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employ-
ees Retirement Fund, 583 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., 
at 21–22).  The clause “hangs together as a unified whole,” 
id., at ___ (slip op., at  21), using the word  “or” to connect
two  verbs  that  share  a  common  direct  object,  “telephone 
numbers to be called.”  It would be odd to apply the modifier 
(“using a random or sequential number generator”) to only
a portion of this cohesive preceding clause. 

This interpretation of §227(a)(1)(A) also “heed[s] the com-
mands of its punctuation.”  United States Nat. Bank of Ore. 
v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U. S. 439, 
454 (1993).  Recall that the phrase “using a random or se-
quential  number  generator”  follows  a  comma  placed  after 
the  phrase  “store  or  produce  telephone  numbers  to  be
called.”  As several leading treatises explain, “ ‘[a] qualify-
ing phrase separated from antecedents by a comma is evi-
dence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all the ante-
cedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one.’ ”  
W. Eskridge, Interpreting Law: A Primer on How To Read 
Statutes and the Constitution 67–68 (2016); see also 2A N.
Singer  &  S.  Singer,  Sutherland  Statutes  and  Statutory 
Construction §47:33, pp. 499–500 (rev. 7th ed. 2014); Scalia 
& Garner 161–162.  The comma in §227(a)(1)(A) thus fur-
ther suggests that Congress intended the phrase “using a
random or sequential number generator” to apply equally 
to both preceding elements. 

Contrary  to  Duguid’s  view,  this  interpretation  does  not