Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

18 

YATES v. UNITED STATES 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

with something as real as a fish)?  If not (and the answer 
is  not),  then  that  term  cannot  function  as  a  failsafe  for 
e-mails. 

The  concurrence  acknowledges  that  no  one  of  its  argu-
ments can carry the day; rather, it takes the Latin canons 
plus  §1519’s  verbs  plus  §1519’s  title  to  “tip  the  case”  for
Yates.  Ante,  at  1.  But  the  sum  total  of  three  mistaken 
arguments is . . . three mistaken arguments.  They do not
get better in the combining.  And so the concurrence ends 
up right where the plurality does, except that the concur-
rence,  eschewing  the  rule  of  lenity,  has  nothing  to  fall
back on. 

III 
If  none  of  the  traditional  tools  of  statutory  interpreta-
tion can produce today’s result, then what accounts for it? 
The plurality offers a clue when it emphasizes the dispro-
portionate  penalties  §1519  imposes  if  the  law  is  read 
broadly.  See  ante,  at  17–18.  Section  1519,  the  plurality 
objects, would then “expose[ ] individuals to 20-year prison
sentences  for  tampering  with  any  physical  object  that 
might  have evidentiary value in any federal investigation
into any offense.”  Ante, at 18.  That brings to the surface
the  real  issue:  overcriminalization  and  excessive  punish-
ment in the U. S. Code. 

Now as to this statute, I think the plurality somewhat—
though  only  somewhat—exaggerates  the  matter.    The 
plurality  omits  from  its  description  of  §1519  the  require-
ment that a person act “knowingly” and with “the intent to
impede,  obstruct,  or  influence”  federal  law  enforcement.
And in highlighting §1519’s maximum penalty, the plural-
ity  glosses  over  the  absence  of  any  prescribed  minimum. 
(Let’s  not  forget  that  Yates’s  sentence  was  not  20  years, 
but 30 days.)  Congress presumably enacts laws with high
maximums and no minimums when it thinks the prohibited
conduct  may  run  the  gamut  from  major  to  minor.    That