CCL’s Robert S. Peck told congressional staffers attending a Supreme Court preview that the term contained no blockbuster cases yet and seemed to have focused on when statutory language is to be given a precise textual meaning or when a rule of reason is to be applied to accomplish congressional intent. One case discussed at the session, sponsored by the Civil Justice Caucus, was Yates v. U.S., where a commercial fisherman was charged with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for destroying undersized fish before he got to port. The Act prohibits the destruction of records, documents and “other tangible things” that are part of an investigation.  The Court must decide whether fish constitute “other tangible things” within the contemplation of the Act. The case recalls last term’s decision in Bond v. U.S., where a woman who painted a toxic chemical onto the mailbox of her neighbor in seeking revenge for having an affair with her husband had been charged with violating the Chemical Weapons Treaty. In Bond, the Court found that the prosecutor had been overzealous in charging the woman with that offense and held that her actions did not amount to use of chemical weapons.

In two other cases discussed at the forum, the Court will decide whether a federal agency’s re-interpretation of one of its regulations requires notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before it can be applied.