A manufacturer of goods is not an accomplice to every unaffiliated retailer whom it fails to make follow the law.

— Justice Kagan in SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC. v. ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

— using the object pronoun whom (Tip: consider it could be rewritten with him not he: it fails to make him follow the law.)

Put differently, a plaintiff must belong to the class of persons to whom the statute grants a right to sue.

— Justice Barrett in FDA v. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR CO

— using the object pronoun whom, which typically follows prepositions like by, from, to, and with

Under that approach, the government admits, even our lifeguard, whose offense stems from inaction, is guilty of a “crime of violence.”

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

— using whose, the possessive form of the relative pronoun who to introduce a relative clause modifying our lifeguard

The majority agrees with Monsalvo that he seeks review of a “term” in his final order of removal, but it identifies the relevant term as the BIA’s provision of a 60-day voluntary-departure period.

— Justice Thomas (dissenting) in MONSALVO VELÁZQUEZ v. BONDI

— using he for Monsalvo and it for the collective singular noun majority

The losing party in the district court—the defendant against whom an injunction is granted, or the plaintiff who is denied an injunction—will often go to the court of appeals to seek a temporary stay or injunction.

— Justice Kavanaugh (concurring) in TRUMP v. CASA, INC.

— using both who (the subject pronoun) and whom (the object pronoun) to keep the sentence precise and readable

At the time Congress enacted §106(a), a handful of States had chosen to subject themselves to potential liability under their own fraudulent- transfer statutes.

— Justice Jackson in UNITED STATES v. MILLER

— using the reflexive pronoun themselves (never themself) to showing that the States are both the actors and the ones acted upon

Thus, the majority concludes, the OCCA premised its application of the PCPA’s bar on an “antecedent holding” of “federal law,” which we have jurisdiction to review. This theory misstates the decision below and defies logic.

— Justice Thomas (dissenting) in GLOSSIP v. OKLAHOMA

— adding clarity with the word theory (in the second sentence) to refer directly back to the majority’s position and avoid using this as an undefined pronoun

Congress was not naive to the insidious nature of disability discrimination when it enacted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. It understood full well that discrimination against those with disabilities derives principally from “apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.”

— Justice Sotomayor (concurring) in A.J.T. v. OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS,

— using the singular pronoun it correctly to stand in for the singular collective noun Congress.

As a matter of law, the injunction’s protection extends only to the suing plaintiff—as evidenced by the fact that only the plaintiff can enforce the judgment against the defendant responsible for the nuisance. If the nuisance persists, and another neighbor wants to shut it down, she must file her own suit.

— Justice Barrett in TRUMP v. CASA, INC.

— showing that the justices avoid the universal (and sexist) he when offering hypotheticals

In 1998, Texas charged Ruben Gutierrez with capital murder for the killing of Escolastica Harrison at her mobile home in Brownsville, Texas. The State’s theory at trial was that Harrison had been stabbed to death with two different screwdrivers. To support its view that Gutierrez wielded one of the two screwdrivers in question, the State introduced a statement Gutierrez gave to the police, in which he acknowledged that he and two accomplices had planned to rob Harrison on the day she was killed and that he had been in Harrison’s home while one of his accomplices stabbed her.

— Justice Sotomayor in GUTIERREZ v. SAENZ

— using names when clarity requires it—and pronouns when the person she’s referring to is clear, all to to describe the facts around key players

Instead, the Court stretches the law at every turn to rule in his favor. At the threshold, it concocts federal jurisdiction by misreading the decision below. On the merits, it finds a due process violation based on patently immaterial testimony about a witness’s medical condition. And, for the remedy, it orders a new trial in violation of black-letter law on this Court’s power to review state-court judgments.