Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-511_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

1 

ALITO, J., concurring
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–511 
_________________ 

FACEBOOK, INC., PETITIONER v. 
NOAH DUGUID, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[April 1, 2021]

 JUSTICE ALITO, concurring in the judgment. 
I agree with the Court that an “automatic telephone dial-
ing system,” as defined in the Telephone Consumer Protec-
tion Act of 1991, must have the capacity to “store . . . tele-
phone numbers” by “using a random or sequential number 
generator.”  47  U. S. C.  §227(a)(1)(A).    I  also  agree  with
much  of  the  Court’s  analysis  and  the  analysis  in  several 
Court of Appeals decisions on this question.  See Gadelhak 
v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F. 3d 458, 463–468 (CA7 2020); 
Glasser  v.  Hilton  Grand  Vacations  Co.,  948  F. 3d  1301, 
1306–1312 (CA11 2020). 

I write separately to address the Court’s heavy reliance 
on  one  of  the  canons  of  interpretation  that  have  come  to 
play a prominent role in our statutory interpretation cases. 
Cataloged in a treatise written by our former colleague An-
tonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, counsel for respondents
in  this  case,  these  canons  are  useful  tools,  but  it  is  im-
portant to keep their limitations in mind.  This may be es-
pecially true with respect to the particular canon at issue
here, the “series-qualifier” canon.

According  to  the  majority’s  recitation  of  this  canon, 
“ ‘[w]hen  there  is  a  straightforward,  parallel  construction
that involves all nouns or verbs in a series,’ a modifier at 
the end of the list ‘normally applies to the entire series.’ ”  
Ante, at 5 (quoting A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The