There are six cases listed below. Choose 1 from each pair: 1or 2; 3 or 4; 5 or 6. In your response, do the
following (all in your own words as much as possible or using quotes (sparingly) when necessary).
Make clear how the Court ruled and on what basis they made their ruling. How did they decide
what the words in question in each case meant? Did they use the dictionary, did they look at
trade usage, did they look outside the statute/contract in question, did they look at the intent of
the statute/contract, did they rely on the ordinary (normal) meaning of the word, did they decide
that the statute/contract was ambiguous? Because they are really interesting, I highly encourage
you to read the dissenting opinions where they are available on the site (or a link away).
The questions listed beneath each case are to trigger your thinking; it’s not necessary to explicitly answer these
questions one by one. Feel free to refer to any cases or concepts we’ve discussed in class.
Some of the cases are longer than others, but the longer ones are possibly more interesting. So don’t just assume
that the shorter the case, the easier. Your entire assignment should be 3-4 pp. (Double spaced, 12 pt Times font,
1-inch margins; you can always print double-sided for me)

1 What does “using” a gun mean? (Watson v . USA)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-571.ZO.html
Is a person who swaps drugs for a gun guilty of ‘using’ a gun in the commission of a drug trafficking crime?
Watson wanted to acquire a gun. Since he had some legal issues, he decided to trade narcotics for a gun. He was
arrested for selling prescription drugs and using a gun in the process.
Questions to consider? What do you normally think of when someone is accused of ‘using a gun’ during a
crime? What different meanings are being given to ‘use’? How did the judges use the dictionary? What was the
majority opinion? What was the basis for that decision? What was the dissenting opinion?

2 “Carrying” a firearm (Muscarello v. USA)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1654.ZO.html
A federal statute imposes a mandatory prison term of five years on anyone who uses or carries a firearm in the
commission of a drug-trafficking crime. The US Supreme Court had to interpret what that meant in relation to
two cases: In the first case, the defendant was caught transporting marijuana in his truck. When the police
searched the vehicle, they found a handgun locked in the defendant’s glove compartment. In the second case,
the two defendants were selling cocaine and had placed several guns in the trunk of their car. In both cases the
lower courts had decided that the defendants had been “carrying firearms” in violation of the statute. The
Supreme Court had to decide whether these defendants were in fact “carrying” firearms in these cases.
Questions to consider: What should the Supreme Court have decided? Does a literal reading of the law lead you
to conclude that the defendant violated this statute: Does “carrying a firearm” apply here? What does the
1
dictionary say? Does that matter? What was the likely intent of the framers of this statute? Does that matter?
The dissenting opinion (the opinion of the judges who did not agree with the majority opinion) is also available
as a link on the site I’ve made available to you. Consider the arguments made by those dissenting judges when
you are weighing the decision.

3 No Vehicles across State Lines (McBoyle v. USA)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/283/25.html
McBoyle was convicted of transporting a stolen airplane across a state line. It was determined that he had
violated the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act (1919). The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
What should the Supreme Court have decided? Did McBoyle violate the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act?
Questions to consider: Is a plane a vehicle in ordinary usage? Does that matter? Is it a vehicle according to this
statute? What does the dictionary say? Does that matter? Is it likely that the framers of this statute had airplanes
in mind as well? Does that matter?

4 What is a dress? (Weinberg v. Edelstein)

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1952544201misc3431455.xml
The plaintiff operated a retail store selling “ladies’ dresses, coats and suits and ladies’ sports clothes.” When he
rented the property from the landlord, the lease stated that the landlord could not “rent to any other store in the
same building for the retail sale of ladies’ dresses, coats and suits.” The landlord then leased property in the
building to another person, who the plaintiff argued was prohibited by the lease agreement. The plaintiff
brought the case to court claiming breach of contract.
Questions to consider: What should the court have decided? Do you believe that blouse-skirt combinations are
sometimes called a dress? What does the dictionary say? Does that matter? Does it matter what the retail
clothing industry calls these items? Should one consider the intent of the agreement?

5 Independent Contractor (IC) or Employee? (U.S. v. Silk)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/331/704.html
Two different companies were sued by the IRS for not paying employment taxes. Their cases were considered
together. The companies argued that the workers were not employees (that’s why the companies hadn’t paid
employment taxes); instead, the companies argued that those workers were in fact ICs. The Supreme Court is
then deciding what the difference is between employees and ICs. The workers for Silk were of two types:
workers who unloaded coal from train cars and workers who drove their own trucks to deliver coal. Greyvan
Lines similarly hired workers who drove their own trucks to make deliveries. Were the workers employees or
ICs? It’s important to recognize that the Supreme Court decided that some of the workers in question should be
considered employees while others should be considered ICs. Special note of interest: This Supreme Court
decision is especially noteworthy because it reviews the history of Social Security (Unemployment Insurance),
providing a clear example of institutional racism.
2
Questions to consider: On what basis did the court classify the workers as falling into one category versus the
other? That is, what makes an employee an employee and an IC an IC? Did the court come up with those
standards or were those standards established already?

6 What’s an interpreter? (Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/

10-1472
When a party wins a federal-court lawsuit, the party is reimbursed particular costs. One such category is the cost
associated with interpretation. Does the word ‘interpreter’ include written translation as well as oral translation?
Questions to consider: How do you define ‘interpreter’? How did the judges use the dictionary? What was the majority
opinion? What was the basis for that decision? What was the dissenting opinion (Ginsberg)? What did she argue in
regard to dictionary meaning?