Skip to main content

Dictionaries for SCOTUS

A recent Marquette Law Review article by Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier and Samuel A. Thumma examined the Supreme Court's use of dictionaries in opinions.

From the abstract:

During Supreme Court Terms 2000–2001 through 2009–2010, the Justices have referenced dictionary definitions to define nearly 300 words or phrases. Yet the Court has never expressly explained the proper role and use of the dictionary in American jurisprudence. The Article studies the frequency and the approach the Justices have taken to citing dictionaries in the new century, and it considers the Court’s lack of a reasoned process for selecting or using dictionaries.


The article has also led to a piece in the New York Times by Adam Liptak, pointing out one of the most recent uses of a dictionary: Justice Roberts examined the meaning of the word "of" in the case of Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.:

That reading follows from a common definition of the word “of.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1565 (2002) (“of” can be “used as a function word indicating a possessive relationship”); New Oxford American Dictionary 1180 (2d ed. 2005) (defining “of” as “indicating an association between two entities, typically one of belonging”); Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary 1241 (2d ed. 1979) (defining “of” as “belonging to”).

Stanford’s reading of the phrase “invention of the contractor” to mean “all inventions made by the contractor’s employees” is plausible enough in the abstract; it is often the case that whatever an employee produces in the course of his employment belongs to his employer. No one would claim that an autoworker who builds a car while working in a factory owns that car. But, as noted, patent law has always been different: We have rejected the idea that mere employment is sufficient to vest title to an employee’s invention in the employer. Against this background, a contractor’s invention—an “invention of the contractor”—does not automatically include inventions made by the contractor’s employees.


More on the use of dictionaries by the Supreme Court:

Abstract of the article

New York Times

Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

The Volokh Conspiracy

ABA Journal

Above the Law