Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

3 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

dunes,  the  last  phrase  in  the  list—“makes  a  false  entry 
in”—makes no sense outside of filekeeping.  How does one 
make a false entry in a fish?  “Alters” and especially “falsi-
fies” are also closely associated with filekeeping.  Not one 
of the verbs, moreover, cannot be applied to filekeeping—
certainly  not  in  the  way  that  “makes  a  false  entry  in”  is 
always inconsistent with the aquatic.

Again, the Government is not without a response.  One 
can imagine Congress trying to write a law so broadly that
not  every  verb  lines  up  with  every  noun.    But  failure  to 
“line  up”  may  suggest  that  something  has  gone  awry  in 
one’s  interpretation  of  a  text.    Where,  as  here,  each  of  a 
statute’s verbs applies to a certain category of nouns, there 
is some reason to think that Congress had that category in
mind.  Categories,  of  course,  are  often  underinclusive  or 
overinclusive—§1519,  for  instance,  applies  to  a  bomb-
threatening letter but not a bomb.  But this does not mean 
that  categories  are  not  useful  or  that  Congress  does  not 
enact them.  See, e.g., Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 108– 
109  (1979).    Here,  focusing  on  the  verbs,  the  category  of 
nouns  appears  to  be  filekeeping.  This  observation  is  not 
dispositive,  but  neither  is  it  nothing.    The  Government 
also contends that §1519’s verbs cut both ways because it 
is  unnatural  to  apply  “falsifies”  to  tangible  objects,  and 
that  is  certainly  true.    One  does  not  falsify  the  outside 
casing  of  a  hard  drive,  but  one  could  falsify  or  alter  data
physically recorded on that hard drive.

Finally,  my  analysis  is  influenced  by  §1519’s  title:  “De-
struction,  alteration,  or  falsification  of  records  in  Federal 
investigations and bankruptcy.”  (Emphasis added.)  This 
too points toward filekeeping, not fish.  Titles can be use-
ful devices to resolve “ ‘doubt about the meaning of a stat-
ute.’ ”    Porter  v.  Nussle,  534  U. S.  516,  527–528  (2002) 
(quoting  Almendarez-Torres  v.  United  States,  523  U. S. 
224,  234  (1998));  see  also  Lawson  v.  FMR  LLC,  571  U. S. 
___,  ___–___  (2014)  (SOTOMAYOR, J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,