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 the possessive form of the relative pronoun whose to introduce a relative clause modifying our lifeguard

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

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 that it could be rewritten: it fails to make him follow the law)

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.

— Justice Thomas (dissenting) in GLOSSIP v. OKLAHOMA

— using the singular pronoun it to stand in for the singular collective noun, Court

More SCOTUS examples coming soon!

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

Suppose the U. S. Olympic Committee enacted a rule stating that athletes may call themselves Olympic champions if a gold medal “has been awarded” to them. Pursuant to that rule, a U. S. sprinter who took first place in the 2016 Summer Olympics’ 100-meter finals could validly proclaim—today—that she is “an Olympic champion.” The existence of her win as a historical event triggers the rule’s proper application, because it gives rise to the inference that the athlete remains an Olympic gold medalist at present, thereby justifying her continued use of the “Olympic champion” title.

— Justice Jackson in HEWITT v. UNITED STATES

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