Supreme Court examples of parentheticals

  • But in opposing that ruling, the defendant did not argue (à la Royal Canin) that the court should have held on to the case. Rather, the defendant urged that the court should have dismissed the case outright instead of remanding it. (The difference mattered because the statute of limitations had by then expired, and a dismissal would have ended the suit.)

    — Justice Kagan in ROYAL CANIN U. S. A., INC. v. WULLSCHLEGER

  • The injury (the hit from the negligently driven car) gives the pedestrian a right to sue; the lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering that follow are damages that a plaintiff may be able to recover for the injury.

    — Justice Kavanaugh (dissenting) in MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. v. HORN

    — using a parenthetical phrase to add a secondary explanation

  • In other words, the Court removed one protection for capital defendants (the per se bar on victim impact statements) in part because another protection (the Due Process Clause) remained available against evidence that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair.

    — Per Curium in ANDREW V. WHITE

  • For instance, it could have captured the number of poor Medicare patients by relying on proof of annual income. (That measure might increase the numerator and therefore the reimbursement rate.)

    — Justice Barrett in ADVOCATE CHRIST MEDICAL CENTER v. KENNEDY

    — showing a period inside the parenthetical to end that sentence

  • The Court’s ruling today means that those deportations violated the Due Process Clause’s most fundamental protections. See ante, at 3 (reiterating that notice and an opportunity for a hearing are required before a deportation under the Alien Enemies Act).

    — Justice Sotomayor (dissenting) in TRUMP v. J.G.G.

  • Under that doctrine as it existed in 1946, a judgment is “on the merits” if the underlying decision “actually passes directly on the substance of a particular claim before the court.” Id., at 501–502 (cleaned up).

    — Justice Thomas in BROWNBACK v. KING

    — signaling he changed a quote for readability without altering its meaning

  • Not long ago, the government tried—often successfully—to put “experts” (really, like Agent Flood, its own law enforcement agents) on the stand to testify that all couriers know when they are carrying drugs.

    — Justice Gorsuch (dissenting) in DIAZ v. UNITED STATES

    — showing how to add a witty aside in a parenthetical

  • If “injured” means violation of a legal right, then the right being violated cannot be the right to not suffer from a RICO violation. (That theory would be just as circular as it sounds.)

    — Justice Kavanaugh (dissenting) in MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. v. HORN

    — showing a period inside the parenthetical ends that sentence

  • Thompson did not argue that his alleged statement about “home improvement” was a true statement. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 28 (“That is a false statement.”).

    — Chief Justice Roberts in THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES

    — showing that one period ends the quoted sentence and another ends the citation sentence

  • The child did eat three cookies (then nine more).

    — Justice Alito (concurring) in THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES

    — showing that a single period outside the parenthetical ends the sentence

  • The plain text of the expropriation exception treats all “property” alike, whether that property is tangible (like a piece of art) or fungible (like cash).

    — Justice Sotomayor in REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY v. SIMON

    — showing two asides in a single sentence

  • And, again, even the government concedes that the answer is (mostly) yes.

    — Justice Gorsuch in MONSALVO VELÁZQUEZ v. BONDI

    — whispering a qualifier in a parenthetical