Supreme Court examples of apostrophes—possessives and contractions

  • In his view, these principles established a “bright-line rule”: An injury is located at the plaintiff ’s domicile.

    — Justice Barrett in MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. v. HORN

    — showing the possessive of the singular noun “plaintiff”

  • A map offered by another of plaintiffs’ experts, Bill Cooper, produced districts roughly as compact as the existing plan.

    — Chief Justice John G. Roberts in ALLEN v. MILLIGAN

    — showing the possessive of the plural noun “plaintiffs”

  • You can't replace something with nothing.

    — Justice Barrett in MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. v. HORN

    — showing the Court’s sparse contraction use with this combination of can + not

  • In Raich, the Court addressed Congress’s authority to regulate the marijuana market. The Court reaffirmed “Congress’ power to regulate purley local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.”

    — Justice Alito in TAYLOR v. U.S.

    — quoting Justice Stevens and showing both versions of the possessive of Congress

  • The question before us isn’t whether a regulation can trump a statute (of course not). It is whether Congress’s work in §304 of IIRIRA should be read in light of the government’s longstanding regulatory practice.

    — Justice Gorsuch in MONSALVO VELÁZQUEZ v. BONDI

    — showing the contraction isn’t (is + not) and the majority practice of making the possessive of Congress with an apostrophe plus “s”

  • And even when two works are substantially similar, if both the plaintiff ’s and the defendant’s works copy from a third source (reworking, say, a traditional artistic or literary theme), a claim for infringement generally will not succeed.

    — Justice Gorsuch (concurring) in ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR VISUAL ARTS, INC. v. GOLDSMITH

    — showing the possessive of both plaintiff and defendant by adding apostrophe plus “s" to each

  • Other aspects of the Bankruptcy Code reinforce what §106(a)’s and §101(27)’s plain text conveys.

    — Justice Jackson in LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS v. COUGHLIN

    — showing the possessive of both code sections by adding apostrophe plus “s" to each

  • It’s a convoluted story. . . . So, the agency reasons, Congress cannot have meant for its new legislation to disturb them.

    — Justice Gorsuch (dissenting) in NRC v. TEXAS

    — showing the contraction it’s (it + is) and then the possessive of it: its

  • But you’re still insured: Your policy will pay for more eye care in the next coverage period and meanwhile will pay for your knee replacement.

    — Justice Kagan in BECERRA v. EMPIRE HEALTH FOUNDATION

    — showing the contraction you’re (you + are) and then the possessive of you: your