Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 34

Cite as:  574 U. S. ___ (2015) 

7 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

a  statute  designed  to  close  a  loophole”  is  “illogical  and 
disrespectful of . . . congressional purpose”). 

As  Congress  recognized  in  using  a  broad  term,  giving
immunity to those who destroy non-documentary evidence
has no sensible basis in penal policy.  A person who hides 
a  murder  victim’s  body  is  no  less  culpable  than  one  who
burns  the  victim’s  diary.    A  fisherman,  like  John  Yates, 
who  dumps  undersized  fish  to  avoid  a  fine  is  no  less
blameworthy  than  one  who  shreds  his  vessel’s  catch  log 
for the same reason.  Congress thus treated both offenders 
in  the  same  way.    It  understood,  in  enacting  §1519,  that 
destroying evidence is destroying evidence, whether or not
that evidence takes documentary form. 

II
 
A 

The  plurality  searches  far  and  wide  for  anything— 
anything—to  support  its  interpretation  of  §1519.    But  its 
fishing expedition comes up empty.

The  plurality’s  analysis  starts  with  §1519’s  title:  “De-
struction,  alteration,  or  falsification  of  records  in  Federal 
investigations  and  bankruptcy.”  See  ante,  at  10;  see  also 
ante,  at  3–4  (opinion  of  ALITO,  J.).    That’s  already  a  sign 
something is amiss.  I know of no other case in which we 
have  begun  our  interpretation  of  a  statute  with  the  title,
or  relied  on  a  title  to  override  the  law’s  clear  terms.    In-
stead,  we  have  followed  “the  wise  rule  that  the  title  of  a 
statute and the heading of a section cannot limit the plain
meaning  of  the  text.”  Trainmen  v.  Baltimore  &  Ohio 
R. Co., 331 U. S. 519, 528–529 (1947). 

The reason for that “wise rule” is easy to see: A title is, 
almost  necessarily,  an  abridgment.    Attempting  to  men-
tion  every  term  in  a  statute  “would  often  be  ungainly  as
well  as  useless”;  accordingly,  “matters  in  the  text  . . .  are 
frequently unreflected in the headings.”  Id., at 528.  Just 
last  year,  this  Court  observed  that  two  titles  in  a  nearby