united-states statutes
How to interpret the logical structure of a US legal statute&#39;s sub clauses
<p>I am confused as to how to interpret the logical structure of US Statutes.</p>

<p>The particulars don't interest me but the general question of whether the subsequent paragraph (starting with "in any grant") applies to both (1) &amp; (2) or only to (2)</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/U0gxJ.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/U0gxJ.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>That's what judges are for. The most likely interpretation is that the structure of the code there would have the unnumbered part apply to both numbered clauses. Which is how is seems to be interpreted. United States v. Cardin, 577 Fed. Appx. 546 (6th Cir.  2014); United States v. Williams, 356 Fed. Appx. 167 (10th Cir. 2009; United States v. Nolan, 223 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2000)</p>

<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/pdf/USCODE-2010-title18-partI-chap47-sec1031.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a>, it is formatted more clearly:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/44f5F.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/44f5F.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>This also matches the formatting <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>

<p>Justice Scalia, in his text on statutory interpretation <em><a href="http://www.worldcat.org/title/reading-law-the-interpretation-of-legal-texts/oclc/780036606?page=citation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Reading Law: The interpretation of legal texts</a></em>, described the "scope-of-subparts canon", which states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... material contained in unindented text relates to all the following or preceding indented subparts. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This isn't an absolute canon, since legislative members aren't always voting on the fully formatted text. However, in this case, even ignoring that canon, or even without the more clear formatting, the free-standing section applies to (a) as a whole. This is clear because it establishes the penalty for violating (a) and it is necessary in order to finish the sentence started when reading through (1).</p>

<p>Said another way, if the paragraph in question did <em>not</em> apply to (1), reading through (1) would give the following, nonsensical non-sentence:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme or artifice with the intent to defraud the United States.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My answer is really a too-long elaboration on Dawn's answer, which is correct. The assembled versions that you find published as the US Code are the of applying the instructions given by Congress, so <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=123&amp;page=1618" rel="nofollow">Pub. L. 111–21, § 2(d)</a> is where the "in any grant, contract, subcontract, subsidy" wording was added. The law itself says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Section 1031(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by –<br>
        (1)
  inserting after “or promises, in” the following: “any grant, contract,
  subcontract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other form of
  Federal assistance, including through the Troubled Asset Relief
  Program, an economic stimulus, recovery or rescue plan provided by the
  Government, or the Government’s purchase of any troubled asset as
  defined in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or in”;</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Section 1031(a) is amended, not Section 1031(a)(2). The indentation reflects that the added text applies to both parts of the disjunct "a or b".</p>

<p>A linguistic analysis of the statute also requires a wide-scope interpretation. It is difficult to see this given how verbose statutes are, but by reducing the wording (take out some of the add-on base-covering conditions), you can see what the logical structure of the resulting statute is. E.g. "executes or attempts to execute" can be reduced to "executes", since we can understand separately that the law applies not just to successes but also attempts. The core sentence is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whoever executes any scheme to defraud the United States or to obtain
  money by false pretenses in any grant shall be fined.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Given the letter subsectioning, the question is how to parse this into a meaningful proposition. If we suppose that "in any grant" applies only to "obtain money by false pretenses" and not to "defraud the United States", then we would be interpreting the law as combining the sentences "Whoever executes any scheme to defraud the United States" and "Whoever executes any scheme to obtain money by false pretenses in any grant shall be fined". The latter is a perfectly sensible and well-formed sentence: but that parsing leaves sub-clause 2 as a meaningless subject with no predicate – it doesn't say what would happen if someone were to defraud the US. Interpreting the "any grant" text as modifying both disjuncts provides a predicate for both subjects, thus is meaningful and grammatical.</p>

<p>If you are referring to 18 U.S.C. § 1031, Major Fraud against the United States, the "in grant" part applies to 1 &amp; 2.</p>
