A tiresome rant on grammar but you get a free DFW essay out of it

So, the other day I'm at the gym over at the U and one of the undergrads who works there is all excited about his LSAT score and can't wait to apply to law school. I ask him how he feels about grammar and diagramming sentences, and he looks at me like I'm some kind of walking non-sequitur because what he's really good at is arguing.

If only I'd had a copy of yesterday's Flores-Figueroa v. United States in my pocket. This was reported under such headlines as "Justices Limit Use of Identity Theft Law in Immigration Cases" and "High court removes tool for deporting illegals." Those are, of course, much more grabby than the more accurate, "Court rules adverb 'knowingly' modifies entire predicate and its object." Few under 35 would have any idea what that headline meant. (The late, great David Foster Wallace explains why in this brilliant piece that takes a little while to download because it's a pretty big file but is completely worth it.) I can't imagine what they would make of the crux of Justice Breyer's reasoning, which was this:

In ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence.

Dismaying as it is, a world where judges and lawyers don't have a command of grammar—the kind you get from diagramming hundreds of sentences—is anarchic.

The Court's other decisions yesterday would probably reinforce the point (if I had a really good reason to slog through them) because they all involve "statutory interpretation," which is legalese for grammar. Two are about civil procedure issues—a remand of state claims to state court is appealable even though the statute says it isn't and the circuit courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a denial of a stay of arbitration. One is about liability under CERCLA. (Shell won; that's as far as I want to get into that one.)

Busy!

Each one of these items probably deserves its own post, but I've fallen behind on interesting stories and am going to include them all here in one post. Thanks to all the tipsters and commenters who have been sending me juicy items.

1. The jury is still out in the night vision goggle case. The prosecution gave a 90 minute closing today and Sharhazad Gholikhan gave a 90 minute closing in her own defense. The jury went out around lunchtime and were discharged for the day at 5pm. Vanessa Blum has the details here. Some of my favorite lines from her closing: She said her only crime was a "conspiracy of marriage." She explained she came to the U.S. voluntarily because she was innocent: "I came. Why? Because I'm clean."

2. No COLA increase for federal judges. Tony Mauro at BLT writes it up here. (HT: Captain). “Wrong time. Wrong place,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-Mo.) exclaimed on the Senate floor Dec. 11. “We have families all over this nation that are scared today, that aren’t buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime’s cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today.” To counter: Federal judges are the only federal employees who will begin 2009 without a COLA. James Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, acknowledged that these are “challenging times” for the economy, but he added in a statement, “That is no reason for Congress to treat federal judges differently than all other federal employees, including members of Congress.” Our prior coverage on this subject is here.

3. Judge Zloch wrote an 82-page blockbuster order finding the Sex Offender and Registration Act (SORNA), which is part of the Adam Walsh Act, unconstitutional. Here's the Order. It's worth a read. It's hard to summarize such a lengthy opinion here, but it basically says that the Act violates the commerce clause because there is no link with registration and commerce. Here's the conclusion:

While providing Congress with the power to regulate sex
offenders in the manner attempted by SORNA would admittedly aid
Congress in its goal to protect the public, it is not has not among
Congress’s enumerated powers. Congress has never been accorded the
general police power it has sought to exercise in SORNA. See
Lopez, 514 U.S. 596-98 (Thomas, J., concurring); Cohens v.
Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) at 426. Cases are legion that note
that the federal government does not have the residual power held
by the states. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S. at 584-602 (Thomas, J.,
concurring).
With statutes like those at issue here, Congress’s desire to
aid in the protection of society against sexual predators is
understandable and laudable. However, “the powers of the
legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not
be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury
v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 175 (1803). Specifically, the
grant of power made under the Commerce Clause is limited. Lopez,
514 U.S. at 552-553 (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) at
189-95). Therefore, the statutes challenged herein cannot be
upheld. Section 16913 transgresses entirely the limits set on

Congress by the Commerce Clause. It cannot be defended except by
adulteration of the text of the Constitution and controlling
caselaw. Section 2250 also exceeds that grant of power made to
Congress under the Commerce Clause. It is in no way a regulation
of persons in interstate commerce but an exertion of a general
police power through an illusory and impermissible jurisdictional
nexus. Thus, the Court declares that § 16913 is unconstitutional
in that Congress lacks the power to enact the same under the
Commerce Clause. Because an unconstitutional law is no law at all,
Defendant Edward Myers shall go hence without day.

And for you grammar nerds, check out footnote one of the opinion:

Many courts and commentators, especially in the passages
quoted herein, render the possessive of “Congress” as “Congress’.”
For clarity as to the number of congresses being referred to and
staying faithful to the traditional rules of grammar, the Court
will employ the natural construction “Congress’s” when referring to
the possessive singular of our national legislature. See William
Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style 1 (4th ed. 2000).

4. The Broward chapter of the Federal Bar is big time. Check out its inaugural 16-page newsletter. The most fun part is the interview with Chief Judge Moreno. His first job in college: working as a janitor at Notre Dame during summers. Favorite Movies: Rudy and Remember the Titans. Favorite Songs: Notre Dame Victory March and God Bless America. (I was sort of with you on the movies, Chief, but those are really your favorite songs?) Favorite Hobbies: Golf, Travel, and Food.

Tons of other fun stuff in the interview. Some good quotes: "When you're a judge you rule your own fiefdom, as Chief you are accountable for the whole kingdom." Courthouses should be like "secular temples" to inspire respect in the community just as cathedrals were built on a grand scale to capture the feeling of a divine presence. "I love jurors and lawyers, and the back and forth of trial and legal arguments."

5. Speaking of Judge Moreno, he sentenced Dr. Ana Alvarez-Jacinto to 30 years in prison today, 8 years more than the sentence recommended by federal prosecutors in this medicare fraud case. Jay Weaver's article is here.

What's the possessive of Harris?

Harris' or Harris's?

Walz' or Walz's?

Markus' or Markus's?

There’s an apostrophe battle brewing among grammar nerds. Is it Harris’ or Harris’s? pic.twitter.com/mDAHxu76Nj

— The Associated Press (@AP) August 13, 2024

In other news, the 11th Circuit issued this opinion yesterday, with each judge also writing a concurring opinion.  Three concurring opinions... by Rosenbaum, Newsom, and Luck.  Happy reading.

Whoooops!

The WSJ blog has a story about Alberto Gonzales's resignation letter, which has a major grammatical mistake:

It has always been my honor to serve at your pleasure. After much thought and consideration, I believe this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.

From the WSJ:

The mistake: “My family and I” should be “my family and me.” WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin, who first pointed out Gonzo’s error to us yesterday afternoon, suspects it privately will delight the attorney general’s critics, who snicker at the sloppy way Gonzales ended his tenure. Such errors may be common in everyday speech, but perhaps they don’t belong in carefully deliberated public letters from cabinet officers to the president. So, Law Blog readers, what does Gonzales’s grammatical lapse symbolize: slipping of standards at DOJ, a rare common touch in official Washington, or, well, just a negligible gaffe?

How embarrassing!

Maybe Rumpole is A.G., as he often makes similar grammar gaffes on his blog...

Apple/Samsung closing arguments

Lots of great coverage around the web today of the closings in a packed courtroom.  It sounded like Apple took the show in openings, but Samsung seems to have had a great closing.  From Reuters:

Samsung attorney Charles Verhoeven countered by saying consumers are not confused between the products from the two mobile companies. He urged jurors to consider that a verdict in favor of Apple could stifle competition and reduce choices for consumers.
"Rather than competing in the marketplace, Apple is seeking a competitive edge in the courtroom," Verhoeven said. Apple thinks "it's entitled to having a monopoly on a rounded rectangle with a large screen. It's amazing really."
...
Samsung's Verhoeven said Apple had not shown any evidence that consumers were actually deceived into buying Samsung products instead of the iPhone or iPad.
"Consumers make choices, not mistakes," he said.

Apple had this to say in its initial close:

Apple attorney Harold McElhinny urged jurors to consider the testimony of a South Korean designer who said she worked day and night on Samsung's phones for three months.
"In those critical three months, Samsung was able to copy and incorporate the result of Apple's four-year investment in hard work and ingenuity - without taking any of the risks," McElhinny said.
Apple is seeking more than $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung. An Apple expert said Samsung earned 35.5 percent margins on the phones in the lawsuit from mid-2010 through March 2012, on $8.16 billion in U.S. revenue. Samsung has disputed that figure.
...
McElhinny focused on a meeting between Samsung and Google executives in February 2010, where Google asked Samsung to stop imitating the iPad so closely.
"Samsung executives chose to ignore that demand and continue on the path of copying," he said.

And from Apple's rebuttal (via ArsTechnica):

The contention that Apple doesn’t want to compete is "startling… and it is wrong," said Bill Lee, the Apple lawyer who delivered a final rebuttal.
"No one is trying to stop them from selling smartphones," he said. "All we're saying is: make your own. Make your own designs, make your own phones, and compete on your own innovations."

Samsung had to address damages (via C|Net):

A topic for both companies was damages, an amount that varies wildly depending on which expert you listen to. Apple's asking for $2.75 billion, while Samsung's targeting Apple for around $519 million. Verhoeven once again made the case that Apple had grossly overestimated.
"$2.75 billion in damages? Really?" Verhoeven asked. "What does it take to get a certified damages expert to agree with you on that?"
"We don't think Samsung should have to pay any damages," Verhoeven countered. "We don't think we're liable, but we have to address the issue of damages because this is the only chance."
Verhoeven pleaded with jurors to use "common sense" if they were to assign damages, going with Samsung's much smaller $22 million tally. Along the way that included taking a crack at Apple's methodology, which included spending $1.75 million on a program to calculate everything together.

I thought this live blog coverage from the Verge of the closings was fantastic as it had tons of quotes and actual exhibits.  Here's the link for the Apple coverage and the Samsung coverage. 

I liked these Apple exhibits:

Any predictions?

And if you aren't interested in Apple vs. Samsung, how about some good ol' fashion grammar humor-- "your" going to love it. 

Lawyers heart adverbs

The WSJ has a whole article about the love affair:

No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: “The adverb is not your friend.”
Not everybody, however, looks askance at the part of speech. Indeed, there is at least one place where the adverb not only flourishes but wields power—the American legal system.
Adverbs in recent years have taken on an increasingly important—and often contentious—role in courthouses. Their influence has spread with the help of lawmakers churning out new laws packed with them.
A U.S. appellate court, for example, this past summer wrestled with the question of whether a defendant could have “knowingly” aimed a laser pointer at a helicopter if he mistakenly assumed the beam wouldn’t reach the aircraft.
Words such as “knowingly,” “intentionally” and “recklessly,” which deal with criminal intent, pop up most frequently, but plenty of other adverbs have enjoyed the spotlight. When the U.S. Supreme Court in June recognized religious protections of closely held companies, justices pondered the significance of an adverb in a 1993 federal statute that guards against laws that “substantially burden” the exercise of religion.
“Indiscriminately” was pivotal in a federal appeals court ruling in January striking down the “net neutrality” rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. Preventing broadband providers from charging sites like Netflix more money for faster speeds would effectively treat them like common carriers, which are required by law to “serve the public indiscriminately,” the court said.
In a tax case from the summer, lawyers for the Internal Revenue Service defended their decision to freeze the bank accounts of a former Pennsylvania state senator, only to see their arguments founder on the word “quickly.” Tax law allows the government to immediately freeze the assets of a suspected tax cheat who “appears to be designing quickly” to hide his wealth. But the judge said there was nothing quick about the defendant’s cash and real-estate transactions, which spanned several years.
“Contrary to the ordinary view that adverbs are superfluous, law generally, and criminal law especially, emerges through its adverbs,” James M. Donovan, a legal anthropology professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, recently wrote in a paper on the subject.
Mr. Donovan, who runs the school’s law library, said that he was immediately drawn to the subject after encountering Mr. King’s “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft” in a faculty reading group. “His blanket dismissal of the importance of adverbs got me uncomfortable,” said Mr. Donovan, “but it took a while to articulate why.”
The number of adverb-dense disputes over how to properly construe a criminal statute has surged since the 1980s, according to a case-law search conducted by Brooklyn Law School professor Lawrence Solan, author of “The Language of Judges.” On the federal level, he said, the criminalization of white-collar and regulatory offenses in the past 30 years has been especially good for adverbs. So has a trend in courts toward painstakingly precise textual analysis, the professor said.
In point of fact, an adverb once got a hearing before the nation’s most eminent jurists.
A U.S. Supreme Court case in 2009, Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., ultimately turned on the modifying reach of the word “knowingly,” tucked into a federal statute defining the crime of aggravated identity theft.
The petitioner was a Mexican citizen arrested for giving his employer counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards that displayed his name but other people’s identification numbers. He convincingly argued that the presence of “knowingly” in the law required the government to prove that he knew the IDs were fake.
The justices unanimously agreed with him. “As a matter of ordinary English grammar, ’knowingly’ is naturally read as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote.
Bryan Garner, editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, is regarded by scholars as the dean of legal prose. He says legislators and adverbs need one another.
Statutes “have to be hyper-literal and generic,” he said. “A fiction writer might say he barreled down the street. There is no way a statute can say, ‘If you barrel your car.’ ”
Says Mr. Garner: “No legislative drafter ever says: Did I pull my readers in? That’s something Stephen King has to ask.”