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”

  • The plaintiffs’ conclusion, however, does not follow from their premise.

    — Justice Gorsuch in BONDI v. VANDERSTOK

    — showing the possessive of the plural noun “plaintiff”

  • You can't replace something with nothing.

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

    — showing the contraction can’t (can + not)

  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • 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 that both code sections are possessive