4
FISCHER v. UNITED STATES
BARRETT, J., dissenting
United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29 (1997)). And “[w]here Con-
gress includes particular language in one section of a stat-
ute but omits it in another section of the same Act,”” we
generally presume that Congress did so intentionally. Rus-
sello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting
United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5
1972) (per curiam)). The Court’s reasons for departing from
these rules are thin.
1
The Court begins with the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem
generis canons. Ante, at 5. The noscitur canon counsels
that “words grouped in a list should be given related mean-
ings.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law §31, p. 195
(2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is particu-
larly useful when interpreting “a word [that] is capable of
many meanings.”” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S.
550, 569 (2016) (quoting Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367
U. S. 303, 307 (1961)). See, e.g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co.,
513 U. S. 561, 573–575 (1995) (employing the canon to in-
terpret “communication” in the statutory list “prospectus,
notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or communication””).
The ejusdem canon applies when “a catchall phrase” follows
“an enumeration of specifics, as in dogs, cats, horses, cattle,
and other animals.” Scalia & Garner §32, at 199. We often
interpret the catchall phrase to “embrace only objects simi-
lar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding
specific words.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S.
105, 115 (2001). See, e.g., Washington State Dept. of Social
and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537
U. S. 371, 375, 385 (2003) (employing the canon to construe
the general term in the statutory list “execution, levy, at-
tachment, garnishment, or other legal process””).
These canons are valuable tools. But applying either to
(c)(2) is like using a hammer to pound in a screw-it looks
like it might work, but using it botches the job. Unlike the
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
