• 0 Posts
  • 66 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle











  • This isn’t even remotely ambiguous. The DoJ’s interpretation is correct.

    The question isn’t really about the meaning of “and”; it’s about the syntactic structure of the whole section.

    A defendant is eligible if they do NOT have (A and B and C). In other words, having any of A, B or C will disqualify them.

    The law could have been written in a more readable fashion, for example:

    the defendant—

    • (A) does not have more than 4 criminal history points…;
    • (B) does not have a prior 3-point offense…; and
    • © does not have a prior 2-point violent offense…

    But the meaning is the same either way. Amazing that this got to the Supreme Court.

    It’s also entirely plausible that this is exactly what was intended when the law was written.