Cato Institute Pun

The United States is the rightful subject of scorn for its prosecution of John Yates, who was convicted under Sarbanes-Oxley's Section 1519 for disposing of red grouper--yes, red group the species of fish--after harbor patrol had caught him fishing them illegally. Sarbanes-Oxley, of course, is a white collar statute that has absolutely nothing to do with fishing. 

The question in the case is whether the words "tangible object" in Sarbanes Oxley can be read to encompass red grouper. This is how the Cato Institute phrased the Question Presented in its amicus brief:

"Did the Eleventh Circuit go overboard when it interpreted Section 1519, a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that forbids the destruction of 'any record, document, or tangible object," to criminalize the throwing of undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico?"

Not only did Cato go for the pun, they also did a great job of conveying how absurd the government's position is (i.e., "Gulf of Mexico").

Here is SCOTUSBlog's case page for Yates v. United States.

The case presents a fun statutory interpretation issue, so I'll try to post on the merits soon. The oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, November 5.

Summing Up An International Law Norm In One Sentence

This short sentence from the EU's amicus brief in Roper v. Simmons effectively summed up the consensus of the international community--that the United States kept poor company when it came to executing children:

"Since 1990, only eight countries reportedly executed children: Iran (8), Saudi Arabia (1), Nigeria (1), the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) (1), Yemen (1), Pakistan (3), China (1) and the United States (19)." Br. at 8-9.

The Court ultimately held that the practice of executing minors violated the Eight Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.