United States: Supreme Court Rejects The Government’s "Fishy" Interpretation Of Sarbanes-Oxley Obstruction Statute

Last Updated: March 4 2015
Article by Harry Sandick and Sophie B. Kaiser

On February 25, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Yates v. United States.1 This case involved the interpretation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519, a statute that was added as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and which provides that a person is guilty of a crime if he or she "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" a federal investigation. The particular allegedly obstructive act at issue in Yates involved a fisherman who discarded undersized red grouper which previously had been caught in violation of federal conservation regulations. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed a conviction and the Supreme Court, in a split decision, reversed.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a decision for four judges – Justice Ginsburg, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor – ruling that a "tangible object" under Section 1519 is some material used to record or preserve information. Justice Alito concurred and provided the fifth vote, but he offered his own, independent assessment of the statutory interpretation issues. Justice Kagan authored a dissent, in which she was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas.

Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion explained at the outset that Section 1519 is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is meant to protect investors and restore trust in financial markets after the Enron scandal. While "[a] fish is no doubt an object that is tangible" – it can "be seen, caught, and handled" – she concluded that "it would cut [Section] 1519 loose from its financial-fraud mooring to hold that it encompasses any and all objects, whatever their size or significance, destroyed with obstructive intent." 2 Accordingly, "[a] tangible object captured by [Section] 1519 . . . must be one used to record or preserve information."

The underlying facts are not complicated: Captain Yates and three crew members operated a commercial fishing boat, the Miss Katie. A deputized state employee who was empowered to enforce federal laws by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Officer Jones, observed three undersized red grouper on the deck of the Miss Katie, and looked for other undersized fish on the boat. He ultimately found 72 undersized fish which he directed Yates to keep segregated until the Miss Katie returned to port. Contrary to this instruction, Captain Yates directed the crew to throw the undersized fish overboard. Thirty-two months later, Captain Yates was charged with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2232(a), which makes it a crime to destroy property to prevent a federal seizure, and with a violation of Section 1519.3 At trial, Yates moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that Section 1519 did not apply to his conduct. The district court seemed to agree with Yates, but felt compelled by Eleventh Circuit precedent to deny the motion. Yates was convicted on both the Section 2232 and the Section 1519 count. As Justice Ginsburg observed, "[f]or life, [Yates] will bear the stigma of having a federal felony conviction."4

Justice Ginsburg's analysis of Section 1519 began with a review of the legislative history behind the statute. The provision was meant to cure a perceived gap in the existing law relating to obstruction of justice. In particular, Section 1512(b) seemed to criminalize the act of persuading another person to destroy records but did not impose liability on the person who destroyed records on their own. Section 1519 also expanded the reach of the prior obstruction statutes to a broader array of federal investigations.5 Justice Ginsburg then turned to the dictionary definitions of "tangible" and "object," but found them not to be dispositive of the meaning of the language in Section 1519.

Justice Ginsburg instead used "[f]amiliar interpretive guides" to construe the words in question. For example, the title of the statute is "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy." The heading "suppl[ies] cues that Congress did not intend 'tangible object' in [Section] 1519 to sweep within its reach physical objects of every kind, including things no one would describe as records, documents, or devices closely associated with them."6 She also placed weight on the fact that Congress codified the statute alongside other very specific prohibitions on obstructive acts relating to documents, and not among the broader prohibitions on all forms of obstruction or spoliation. She looked to traditional forms of legislative history analysis, such as the fact that an amendment of Section 1512(c)(1) was also included in Sarbanes-Oxley and that it contained a sweeping prohibition on spoliation of evidence.

Apart from legislative history, Justice Ginsburg also turned to the canon of statutory construction known as "noscitur a sociis," meaning that "a word is known by the company it keeps."7 Here, that canon of construction counsels in favor of a narrow construction of the words "tangible object" because the surrounding words in the statute ("falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record [or] document") relate to records and documents. She also relied on the ejusdem generis canon: "[w]here general words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are [usually] construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding words."8 She concluded that "[h]ad Congress intended 'tangible object' in [Section] 1519 to be interpreted so generically as to capture physical objects as dissimilar as documents and fish, Congress would have had no reason to refer specifically to 'record' or 'document.'"9

Finally, Justice Ginsburg held that if any ambiguity still remained, the rule of lenity would support the Court's more narrow construction of the statute:

That interpretative principle is relevant here, where the Government urges a reading of [Section] 1519 that exposes individuals to 20-year prison sentences for tampering with any physical object that might have evidentiary value in any federal investigation into any offense, no matter whether the investigation is pending or merely contemplated, or whether the offense subject to investigation is criminal or civil.10

For all of these reasons, Justice Ginsburg "resist[ed] reading [Section] 1519 expansively to create a coverall spoliation of evidence statute, advisable as such a measure might be" and instead holds that "a 'tangible object' ... is one used to record or preserve information."11

Justice Alito wrote a short concurring opinion, giving the Court five votes to reverse. To Justice Alito, three features of the statute supported a narrow interpretation of the statute: the statute's list of nouns, its list of verbs, and its title. Alito wrote, "[a]lthough perhaps none of these features by itself would tip the case in favor of Yates, the three combined do so."12 With respect to the title, he explained that it "points toward filekeeping, not fish."13 "[N]o matter how other statutes might be read, this particular one does not cover every noun in the universe with tangible form."14

Justice Kagan's dissent states that the term "tangible object" should simply refer to "any object capable of being touched," which is the literal meaning of the words involved.15 She was not impressed with the Court's analysis, which she humorously describes as a "fishing expedition" for support for a narrow construction of the statute.16 She disregards the relevance of the title of the statute, because prior Supreme Court decisions have declined to limit the plain meaning of a statute based on the title of a statute. She also explains that considering a statute's placement in the federal code is a completely novel tool of construction. Justice Kagan is dismissive of the Court's reliance on the canons of construction, stating that those canons should not be used to introduce ambiguity into what is, she believes, a clearly worded statute. For similar reasons, she dismisses the relevance of the rule of lenity: "[l]enity offers no proper refuge from that straightforward (even though capacious) construction."17

In her concluding pages, Justice Kagan acknowledges that there is another issue here beyond statutory construction – "the real issue [of] overcriminalization and excessive punishment in the U.S. Code."18 She regrets that the Court's decision will de-criminalize certain acts that she believes should be punishable. However, she acknowledges that there is a problem here:

Most district judges, as Congress knows, will recognize differences between such cases and prosecutions like this one, and will try to make the punishment fit the crime. Still and all, I tend to think . . . that [Section] 1519 is a bad law – too broad and undifferentiated, with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentencers too much discretion. And I'd go further: In those ways, [Section] 1519 is unfortunately not an outlier, but an emblem of a deeper pathology in the federal criminal code.19

Justice Kagan is surely right about the real issue behind Yates. There has been an over-expansion of federal criminal law in recent years. Traditionally, as Justice Kagan seems to recognize, we have depended on the line prosecutors and district court judges to protect individuals from the excesses of this expansion of law. To be sure, prosecutors and judges do typically act in a responsible manner, exercising their discretion wisely and prudently.

However, cases like Yates teach us that these traditional safeguards do not always work, which is why Justice Ginsburg and the majority felt it necessary to limit the reach of this hopelessly broad statute. After all, Yates was exposed to a 20-year maximum sentence for throwing the undersized fish overboard when the conservation regulation that Yates violated was itself only punishable by a fine or fishing license suspension.20 Last year in Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court was also confronted with an application of law that Chief Justice Roberts described as over-reaching: "The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemical irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon."21

While one can imagine that many prosecutors would have declined to bring the Yates prosecution, and that the vast majority of federal judges would have imposed a modest sentence in a case like Yates (as the district judge did here, imposing a 30-day sentence), our system of laws should not be so dependent on the wise exercise of discretion. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, "[i]f angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."22 In the absence of a uniformly prudent exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the uniformly wise exercise of sentencing discretion, the Yates decision acts to place reasonable limits on the inappropriate use of a broadly worded statute. It can be hoped that the Supreme Court and other federal courts will do likewise when confronted with the application of similarly overbroad criminal statutes.


1 No. 13-7451, 574 U.S. __ (Feb. 25, 2015).

2 Id., slip op. at 2.

3 By the time of Captain Yates's indictment, the conservation regulations were changed; after 2009, none of the fish in question would have been illegally caught.

4 No. 13-7451, 574 U.S. __ , slip op. at 5 (Feb. 25, 2015).

5 Id., slip op. at 6.

6 Id., slip op. at 10.

7 Id., slip op. at 14-15.

8 Id., slip op. at 15-16.

9 Id., slip op. at 16.

10 Id., slip op. at 18.

11 Id., slip op. at 20.

12 No. 13-7451, 574 U.S. __ , slip op. at 1 (Feb. 25, 2015) (Alito, J., concurring).

13 Id., slip op. at 3.

14 Id., slip op. at 4.

15 No. 13-7451, 574 U.S. __ , slip op. at 1 (Feb. 25, 2015) (Kagan, J., dissenting).

16 Id., slip op. at 7.

17 Id., slip op. at 15.

18 Id., slip op. at 18.

19 Id., slip op. at 19.

20 Id., slip op. at 3.

21 Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2093 (2014).

22 Madison, James, Federalist No. 51: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, Independent Journal (Feb. 6, 1788).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.