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.
SCOTUS.
>>>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.
As noted earlier in the thread, this could have implications for the ACA case, King vs Burwell, in which the wording “all STATES “shall establish an exchange“ is the key provision. If a fish is not a tangible object, then can the feds establish a state exchange?