Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶125

“[T]he canon against surplusage is strongest,” however, when, like here, one “interpretation would render superfluous another part of the same statutory scheme.” Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U. S. 371, 386 (2013); see United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U. S. 162, 185 (2011) (“‘As our cases have noted in the past, we are hesitant to adopt an interpretation of a congressional enactment which renders superfluous another portion of that same law’”); Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 837, and n. 11 (1988) (collecting cases). It is particularly strange to assume Congress intended the “arrives in” clause to do no work apart from the “present in the United States” clause given that both are not only in the same law but in the very same sentence. See United States v. Taylor, 596 U. S. 845, 857 (2022) (“[W]e do not lightly assume Congress adopts…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.