Section 7

Citation: Section 7
Parent Document: Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2020-06-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4760997/bostock-v-clayton-county/ ↗

Full Text

1,750 chars

Courts must heed the ordinary meaning of the phrase as a
whole, not just the meaning of the words in the phrase.
That is because a phrase may have a more precise or con-
fined meaning than the literal meaning of the individual
words in the phrase. Examples abound. An “American
flag” could literally encompass a flag made in America, but
in common parlance it denotes the Stars and Stripes. A
“three-pointer” could literally include a field goal in football,
but in common parlance, it is a shot from behind the arc in
basketball. A “cold war” could literally mean any winter-
time war, but in common parlance it signifies a conflict
short of open warfare. A “washing machine” could literally
refer to any machine used for washing any item, but in eve-
ryday speech it means a machine for washing clothes.
   This Court has often emphasized the importance of stick-
ing to the ordinary meaning of a phrase, rather than the
meaning of words in the phrase. In FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562
U. S. 397 (2011), for example, the Court explained:
        “AT&T’s argument treats the term ‘personal privacy’
     as simply the sum of its two words: the privacy of a per-
     son. . . . But two words together may assume a more
     particular meaning than those words in isolation. We
     understand a golden cup to be a cup made of or resem-
     bling gold. A golden boy, on the other hand, is one who
     is charming, lucky, and talented. A golden opportunity
     is one not to be missed. ‘Personal’ in the phrase ‘per-
     sonal privacy’ conveys more than just ‘of a person.’ It
     suggests a type of privacy evocative of human con-
     cerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity
     like, say, AT&T.” Id., at 406.

Other Sections in This Document (1015)

Full Text