The Supreme Court splendidly split last week in the Case of the Missing Prayer Rug. By all the usual criteria, it was a nuthin' case — a case of minimal public interest, tossed over to Justice Clarence Thomas for another ho-hum opinion. I'm writing about it for a reason.
Let me get to the reason in a minute. First, the facts:
Five years ago, Abdus-Shahid Ali was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta. The record doesn't say why, and it doesn't matter. He was about to be transferred to another federal prison. He had packed all his belongings in two duffle bags for the transfer. When the bags arrived, certain items were missing — among them, a prayer rug and two copies of the Qur'an, valued in all at $177.
In our litigious society, he naturally sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) responded — please stay awake! — that his claim was barred by an exception in Sect. 2680c for property claims against law enforcement officers. The U.S. District Court agreed with the bureau; the 11th Circuit affirmed the district judge; and to settle a conflict among the circuit courts, the Supremes took the case. Last week, in an absolute vacuum of public interest, they affirmed 5-4. Justice Thomas explained:
"This case turns on whether the BOP officers who allegedly lost petitioner's property qualify as 'other law enforcement officers' within the meaning of Sect. 2680c ..."
Kind of grabs you, doesn't it? That is the fascinating thing about covering the federal appellate courts, as I have covered them for 60 years: The most insignificant cases are often the most fun. Here the nine justices of the highest court in the land split passionately over — over — over the meaning of "any other law enforcement officer."
Justice Thomas, the court's foremost ponderer, pondered at length. The words "any other," he said, suggest a broad meaning. He and his colleagues had previously concluded that the word "any" has an expansive meaning. Notably, he noted, the word "any" is repeated four times in the relevant portion of the statute. Congress could not have chosen a more all-encompassing phrase than "any other law enforcement officer" to express its intent. "We have no reason to demand that Congress write less economically and more repetitiously. ..."
Amen, Brother Thomas! The usually speechless justice then wrote on for another 2,000 words. The dissenters, speaking first through Justice Anthony Kennedy, responded in kind. Kennedy is well known in the court's press corps for never using 1,000 words when 5,000 words would more murkily murk his murk. He began his dissent by letting us know that the rules of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis should be interpreted in relation to one another. Yes!
After a while — a very long while — Justice Stephen Breyer seized the lectern. He said:
"As with many questions of statutory interpretation, the issue here is not the meaning of the words. The dictionary meaning of each word is well known. Rather, the issue is the statute's scope. What boundaries did Congress intend to set? To what circumstances did Congress intend the key phrase to apply? ... In my view, the word 'any' provides no help whatsoever. ..."
Only a lover could love a case as dull as that one.
It's been a wonderful ride. With this column, I retire from writing about the Supreme Court. Heaven knows I will miss the assignment. My love for court reporting began in Richmond, Va., in the spring of 1940. I was a cub reporter for the afternoon News Leader, soon assigned to a beat that included U.S. District Court and the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. I didn't know a demurrer from an injunction, but some wonderful judges were patient. I soon came to love the law and the judges who write it. Scalia! I will miss you!
It's just as the professors of poker say: You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. I turned 87 three months ago. My beloved wife, Marianne, is effectively crippled by a form of paralysis in her legs that defies analysis. Together we are learning to turn tight corners with her wheelchair. She is a plucky girl.
For the past 12 years I've been writing two columns a week, one on the courts, the other on the use and abuse of English. The former must be dropped. I won't be hanging around the high court anymore. My hope is to continue writing "The Writer's Art" for yet a while. There's an idiom for you — yet a while! One carries on.
(Letters to Mr. Kilpatrick should be sent by email to kilpatjj@aol.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2007 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
This feature may not be reproduced or distributed electronically, in print or otherwise without the written permission of uclick and Universal Press Syndicate.
I must say that I was very impressed by the collection of listings on LawCrossing. Jon
Facts
LawCrossing Fact #85: Because very few people know about many of the jobs on LawCrossing, users who sign up will be one step closer to finding their dream jobs.
Enjoyed reading this article? Click here to sign up for News Wire, our weekly newsletter, and you'll receive articles just like this right in your inbox.
Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!
LawCrossing caters to the legal job needs of all legal professionals -- partners, attorneys, in-house counsel, law students, paralegals, and other legal staff.
Description:
Bangkok office seeks a senior corporate/finance/securities/M&A lawyer with 5+ years of experience. Experience with leading international law firms is also preferable.
