Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

2 

SNYDER v. UNITED STATES 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

instances, we do much the same when we speak of the “re-
straint” necessary “in assessing the reach of a federal crim-
inal statute.”  Id., at 129 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted);  accord,  Marinello,  584  U. S.,  at  6–7,  11;  Arthur 
Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U. S. 696, 703 (2005). 

But  make  no  mistake:  Whatever  the  label,  lenity  is 
what’s  at  work  behind  today’s  decision,  just  as  it  is  in  so 
many others.  Rightly so.  I am pleased to join.