Supreme Court examples of negative wording

  • Our customary practice reflects these principles. “Normally the Supreme Court, when reversing a state court judgment, remands the case for proceedings ‘not inconsistent’ with the Court’s opinion.

    — Justice Thomas (dissenting) in GLOSSIP v. OKLAHOMA

    — explaining a common ending to Court opinions

  • That argument is not without force and, at a minimum, highlights how the government might seek to indirectly target a product or service “through a conduit” in addition to regulating it directly.

    — Justice Kavanauagh in DIAMOND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC v. EPA

    — adding nuance with the double negative “not without” and the contrast between “indirectly” and “directly”

  • These examples demonstrate that nondeferential appellate review of factbound legal issues is not unprecedented.

    — Justice Jackson (dissenting) in BUFKIN v. COLLINS

    — opting for a more cautious claim than saying the practice is “well established”; in this way, double negatives are strategic

  • And in any event, these problems are not unavoidable.

    — Justice Alito in RILEY v. BONDI

    — softening the tone and deliberately hedging with the double negative “not unavoidable” to affirm possibility without overpromising

  • All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional.

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

    — using a double negative to add restraint

  • Indeed, contrary to the Court’s suggestion, the word “sentence” does not ineluctably mean a “legally valid” sentence.

    — Justice Alito (dissenting) in HEWITT v. UNITED STATES

    — using a double negative to carefully define a term; it’s precise, controlled and adds nuance, rather than confusion