Kent Bulloch v. United States

Based on his agreement to sell face masks that had been designated as scarce materials at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, petitioner Kent Bulloch was convicted of conspiracy to “accumulate” such materials for the purpose of resale at prices in excess of prevailing market prices, in violation of the section of the Defense Production Act of 1950 entitled “Hoarding of designated scarce materials.” Review of his conviction required the Court of Appeals, as a matter of first impression, to determine the meaning of “accumulate” in that section, which provides that: In order to prevent hoarding, no person shall accumulate

1. in excess of the reasonable demands of business, personal, or home consumption, or (2) for the purpose of resale at prices in excess of prevailing market prices, materials which have been designated by the President as scarce materials or materials the supply of which would be threatened by such accumulation. [50 U.S.C. § 4512] Bulloch, whose agreement contemplated delivering masks to a buyer as soon as he obtained them, contended that, when read naturally in the context of the phrase that precedes it (“In order to prevent hoarding”), it is plain that “accumulate” is used as a synonym for “hoard.” The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that, unless the meaning of the word “accumulate” standing alone was ambiguous, looking to the opening phrase to determine its meaning would contravene the holding of District of Columbia v. Heller that, while a prefatory clause may “resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause,” it does not otherwise “limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.” The questions presented are:

2. Whether Heller’s limitation on the effect of prefatory clauses displaces the canons teaching that the meaning of a word in a statute cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be informed by the “neighboring words” with which it is associated; and

3. Whether, viewed in the context of the words with which it is associated in 50 U.S.C. § 4512, “accumulate” either (a) signifies conduct that constitutes “hoarding” or (b) does not unambiguously signify conduct other than “hoarding” and therefore requires consideration of legislative history to determine its meaning and calls into play the rule of lenity.