Supreme Court examples of concise sentences

  • If she has a heart attack in February, she’s in. But if her heart fails in January, she’s out.

    — Justice Jackson (dissenting) in ADVOCATE CHRIST MEDICAL CENTER v. KENNEDY

    — delivering a complex idea with plain, direct language and zero clutter

  • One man’s “covert content manipulation” is another’s “editorial discretion.”

    — Justice Gorsuch (concurring) in TIKTOK INC. v. GARLAND

    — expressing a nuanced legal disagreement in just 12 words, using symmetry and contrast (and no filler)

  • But in my view, nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention.

    — Justice Kagan (dissenting) in DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CALIFORNIA

    — showing concision doesn’t mean sacrificing authority

  • They might be upset and refuse to hire her again. But should the babysitter face federal fraud charges? Of course not.

    — Justice Gorsuch (concurring) in KOUSISIS v. UNITED STATES

    — breaking the idea into compact steps and ending with a punch

  • Again, take the adolescent distressed by newly developing facial hair. Was the patient identified female at birth? SB1 authorizes the prescription of medication. Male at birth? SB1 prohibits it.

    — Justice Sotomayor (dissenting) in UNITED STATES v. SKRMETTI

    — delivering precise, morally charged brilliance, through structure alone

  • But in Title VII cases too, employers control “most of the cards,” and plaintiffs may be low-income.

    — Justice Kavanaugh in E.M.D. SALES, INC. v. CARRERA

    — capturing a complex dynamic in plain words, without hedging or extra clauses

  • The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision.

    — Justice Jackson (dissenting) in TRUMP v. CASA, INC.

    — conveying pointed disagreement in three sentences averaging 18 words each, the average across all Court opinions

  • We start with the text. Section 1014 criminalizes “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement or report.” It does not use the word “misleading.” Yet false and misleading are two different things. A misleading statement can be true. And a true statement is obviously not false.

    — Chief Justice Roberts in THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES

    — breaking down a complex statutory distinction into simple steps with short sentences, precise terms and logical flow

  • The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm. And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.

    — Justice Jackson (dissenting) in NOEM v. DOE

    — delivering a complete, clear judgment in a eight direct words, with no hedging, no filler, and no legalese