When a fisherman catches undersize fish and then, when nailed, dumps them surreptitiously overboard, is that a violation of federal securities laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? No, says SCOTUS 5 to 4?
While you weren’t looking, the Supreme Court decided the weighty question of whether a fish is a “tangible object” whose destruction violates the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. You can rest easy now; five SCOTUS Justices say “No.” To them, a fish is a fish, not the sort of evidentiary document contemplated by the Act. Justice Kagan and three colleagues dissented on the grounds that whatever the authors of the Act may have intended, the Act says what it says, however stupid its application to this case.
But in so doing, her Lordship cited Dr. Seuss’ as authority — so says the New York Times — for her conclusion. See http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/us/justices-overturn-a-fishermans-conviction-for-tossing-undersize-catch.html?ref=us&_r=0
Naturally, Justice Kagan’s opinion reference to something as frivolous as Dr. Seuss has inspired all sorts of foo-foo by the legal commentariat. As for us, we don’t think much of that frivolity, if nothing else, because the Justices, the same as everybody else, are entitled to take a shot at producing a humorous line, even if the effort fails at times and the intended joke falls flat, as it did in this case. Moreover, there have been more serious transgressions along these lines. Back in 1980, the Los Angeles Daily Journal (the state’s largest legal newspaper) reported on page one that the environmental warriors in the office of the California Attorney General took the position that for environmental law purposes butterflies are fish. You read that right — fish. See Too Intrusive? Administrative Law Office Tangles with California Agencies, Oct. 27, 1980, p. 1.