Posted on 02/25/2015 2:44:20 PM PST by ThethoughtsofGreg
Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Yates v. United States. Previously written about on these pages, the case arose when Mr. Yates was accused of violating the anti-document shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, legislation passed shortly after the 2001 Enron scandal, for throwing three undersized red grouper overboard after an encounter with Florida Fish and Wildlife.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected the governments broad interpretation of the anti-shredding statute (18 U.S.C § 1519) and held that a tangible object within §1519s compass is one used to record or preserve information and does not apply to all objects in the physical world, including fish. Further, the Court found that if traditional tools of statutory construction left any doubt to the meaning of tangible object, it would be appropriate to invoke the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguities in a criminal statute be resolved in favor of the defendant.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlegislator.org ...
It is a stupid law, and we are criminalizing way too much, but do you really want the supreme court to act based on that criteria? It is a dangerous invitation to judicial activism. Laws like this need to be killed legislatively, not judicially.
this is easy...
grab the fish by the tail..
slap it hard along the side of the boat..
it will grow at least 3 inches...
if it is more than 3 inches short, do yourself a favor..
throw it back
:)
Foreshadowing health care decision on whether federal government is a state?
Still and all, I tend to think, for the reasons the plurality gives, that §1519 is a bad lawtoo broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And Id go further: In those ways, §1519 is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.
So what the dissenters are doing is here applying Abraham Lincoln's maxim on bad laws - "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
I didn't read it, but naturally assumed it was the usual breakdown of the court. It is odd that Thomas and Scalia sided with Kagan, and Kennedy is an unpredictable weather-vane.
I would at least give Thomas and Scalia's opinions some consideration.
today is Abe Vagoda's birthday! he is 94... seems like he has always been 94 :)
That's a tough one. Is there really any hope that the enforcement of this bad law will result in some sort of beneficial change? If not, in the meantime, someone is being horribly damaged by strict application of this law.
Odd to see Thomas and Scalia on the same side as Kagan, and of course, who can predict Kennedy?
When’s the last time anyone saw a 5-4 split like THIS? Maybe bodes well for a future where partisanship isn’t a SCOTUS question?
This tells me how the vote will go on health care and its plain language.
Our top court thinks people don’t exist until out of the birth canal, yet want to throw two double murder charges at a person for killing a pregnant woman.
The bipolar schitzophrenia knows no bounds.
What’s an “anti-document”?
How, in the heck, does SOX apply to a private citizen who fishes?
SOX applies to public companies and nothing more, in my understanding.
I disagree in this case. The Court was not being activist, but was textually analyzing the statute. This statute was enacted as part of Sarbanes-Oxley and was intended to stop persons under investigation from shredding documents. It was never intended to be a general incrimination under federal law of all spoliation of evidence, certainly not throwing fish overboard.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The statute says it is a crime to destroy any "record, document or tangible object" with intent to obstruct an investigation. The four dissenters (who included Scalia and Thomas) said that a fish is a tangible object and that statutes should be read literally. The majority relied on the intent of Congress, which was to reach destruction of documents, computer hard drives and the like.
Wow, talk about overreach. We’ve got to shrink down the number of laws.
Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Kagan?
Strange bedfellows. Did Thomas or Scalia believe that the fish fell under SOX?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.