certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 23–5572. Argued April 16, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” 18 U. S. C. § 1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, infuences, or impedes any offcial proceeding, or attempts to do so.” § 1512(c)(2). Petitioner Joseph Fischer was charged with violating § 1512(c)(2) for his conduct on January 6, 2021. On that day, Congress convened in a joint session to certify the votes in the 2020 Presidential election. While they did so, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the Capitol, and some eventually forced their way into the building, breaking windows and assaulting police. App. 189. This breach of the Capitol delayed the certifcation of the vote. The criminal complaint alleges that Fischer was among those who invaded the building. Fischer was charged with various crimes for his actions on January 6, including obstructing an offcial proceeding in violation of § 1512(c)(2). He moved to dismiss that charge, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. A divided panel of the D. C. Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Held: To prove a violation of § 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an offcial proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an offcial proceeding, or attempted to do so. Pp. 485–498. (a) To determine the scope of the residual “otherwise” clause in § 1512(c)(2), the Court must decide how it is linked to its “surrounding words,” Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528, 536 (plurality opinion), and “ `give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of [the] statute.' ” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 404 (quoting United States v. Men asche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539). The Court considers both “the specifc context” in which (c)(2) appears “and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341. Pp. 486–492. (1) Section 1512(c)(1) describes particular types of criminal conduct in specifc terms. The purpose of (c)(2) is, as the parties agree, to cover some set of “matters not specifcally contemplated” by (c)(1). Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848, 860. Perhaps Congress sought to criminalize all obstructive acts in § 1512(c), and having named a few examples in (c)(1), devised (c)(2) to prohibit the rest. But (c)(2) could have a narrower scope if Congress designed it to fll inadvertent gaps in the focused language of (c)(1).

One way to discern the reach of an “otherwise” clause is to look for guidance from whatever examples come before it. Two general principles are relevant. First, the canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 294. And under the related canon of ejusdem generis, a general or collective term at the end of a list of specifc items is typically controlled and defned by reference to those specifc items that precede it. Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450, 458. These approaches to statutory interpretation track the common sense intuition that Congress would not ordinarily introduce a general term that renders meaningless the specifc text that accompanies it.

Under these principles, the “otherwise” provision of § 1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specifc criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1). If, as the Government asserts, (c)(2) covers all forms of obstructive conduct beyond § 1512(c)(1)'s focus on evidence impairment, Congress would have had little reason to provide any specifc examples at all. And the sweep of subsection (c)(2) would swallow (c)(1), leaving that narrower provision with no work to do.

Tethering subsection (c)(2) to the context of (c)(1) recognizes the distinct purpose of each provision. Subsection (c)(1) refers to a defned set of offense conduct—four types of actions that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an offcial proceeding. Reading the “otherwise” clause as having been given more precise content by (c)(1), subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an offcial proceeding in ways other than those specifed in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence. Subsection (c)(2) also ensures that liability is still imposed for impairing the availability or integrity of other things used in an offcial proceeding beyond the “record[s], document[s], or other object[s]” enumerated in (c)(1), such as witness testimony or intangible information. Pp. 486–491. (2) It makes sense to read (c)(2) as limited by (c)(1) in light of the history of the provision. The Enron accounting scandal exposed a loophole in § 1512. At that time, the statute imposed liability on anyone who, among other things, corruptly persuaded another person to shred Page Proof Pending Publication documents. But it curiously failed to impose liability on a person who destroyed records himself. The parties agree that Congress enacted § 1512(c) as part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act to plug this loophole. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress created a catchall provision that reaches beyond the scenarios that prompted the legislation. Pp. 491–492.

(b) The broader context of § 1512 in the criminal code confrms that (c)(2) is limited by the scope of (c)(1). Federal obstruction law consists of numerous provisions that target specifc criminal acts and settings, much of which would be unnecessary if (c)(2) criminalized essentially all obstructive conduct. Given the Court's obligation to give meaning where possible to each word and provision in the Code, Taylor, 529 U. S., at 404, the Court's narrower interpretation of subsection (c)(2) is the superior one.

An unbounded interpretation of subsection (c)(2) would also render superfuous the careful delineation of different types of obstructive conduct in § 1512 itself. That section provides a reticulated list of nearly two dozen means of committing obstruction with penalties ranging from three years to life in prison, or even death. The Government's reading would lump together under (c)(2) disparate types of conduct for which Congress had assigned proportionate sentences. Pp. 492–496. (c) The Government's theory would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist to decades in prison. Our usual approach in obstruction cases has been to “resist reading” particular sub-provisions “to create a coverall” statute. Yates, 574 U. S., at 549 (plurality opinion). Nothing in the text or statutory history gives the Court a reason to depart from that practice today. And the Government's interpretation would give prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw ft to punish with far shorter sentences. By reading (c)(2) in light of (c)(1), the Court affords proper respect to “the prerogatives of Congress” in carrying out the quintessentially legislative act of defning crimes and setting the penalties for them. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 600. Pp. 496–498.

64 F. 4th 329, vacated and remanded.

Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., fled a concurring opinion, post, p. 498. Barrett, J., fled a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined, post, p. 506. Jeffrey T. Green argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Heidi R. Freese, Ronald A. Krauss, and Frederick W. Ulrich.

Page Proof Pending Publication Solicitor General Prelogar argued the cause for the United States. With her on the brief were Acting Assistant Attorney General Argentieri, Deputy Solicitor General Fei gin, Matthew Guarnieri, and James I. Pearce.*

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”

18 U. S. C. § 1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, infuences, or impedes any offcial proceeding, or attempts to do so.” § 1512(c)(2). We consider whether this “otherwise” clause should be read in light of the limited reach of the specifc provision that precedes it.

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for America's Future et al. by William J. Olson, Jeremiah L. Morgan, Robert J. Olson, Patrick M. McSweeney, J. Mark Brewer, Michael Boos, Daniel H. Jorjani, and John I. Harris III; for Citizens Concerned for the Constitutional Rights of Defendants by Paloma A. Capanna; for Liberty Counsel Action, Inc., by Mathew D. Staver, Anita L. Staver, and Horatio G. Mihet; for Sen. Tom Cotton et al. by R. Trent McCotter and Gene P. Hamilton; and for Christopher Warnagiris et al. by Theodore M. Cooperstein and Marina Medvin.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for Former Government Offcials et al. by Matthew A. Seligman, Fred Wertheimer, and E. Danya Perry; and for John Danforth et al. by Richard D. Bernstein, pro se.

Briefs of amici curiae were fled for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Jordan A. Sekulow, Walter M. Weber, and Benjamin P. Sisney; for the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation et al. by Edward Lacy Tarpley, Jr.; for the LONANG Institute by Kerry Lee Morgan and Randall A. Pentiuk; and for Law-Linguistics Research Team Clark D. Cunningham et al. by Clark D. Cunningham, pro se.

Page Proof Pending Publication

I

This case concerns the prosecution of petitioner Joseph Fischer for his conduct on January 6, 2021. That day, both Houses of Congress convened in a joint session to certify the votes in the 2020 Presidential election. While they did so, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the Capitol. As set forth in the criminal complaint against Fischer, some of the crowd eventually “forced entry” into the building, “breaking windows,” and “assaulting members of the U.S. Capitol Police.” App. 189. This breach of the Capitol caused Members of Congress to evacuate the Chambers and delayed the certifcation process.

The complaint alleges that Fischer was one of those who invaded the building.

According to the complaint, about an hour after the Houses recessed, Fischer trespassed into the Capitol and was involved in a physical confrontation with law enforcement. Fischer claimed in Facebook posts that he “pushed police back about 25 feet,” and that he “was inside the [Capitol] talking to police.” Id., at 193–194. Body camera footage shows Fischer near a scrum between the crowd and police who were trying to eject trespassers from the building. Id., at 195–196.

A grand jury returned a seven-count superseding indictment against Fischer. Six of those counts allege that Fischer forcibly assaulted a federal offcer, entered and remained in a restricted building, and engaged in disorderly and disruptive conduct in the Capitol, among other crimes. See id., at 181–185; 18 U. S. C. §§ 111(a), 231(a)(3), 1752(a)(1), (a)(2); 40 U. S. C. §§ 5104(e)(2)(D), (G). Those six counts carry maximum penalties ranging from six months' to eight years' imprisonment.

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. § 1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the proviPage Proof Pending Publication sion criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “ `have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.' ” 2022 WL 782413, *4 (DC, Mar. 15, 2022) (quoting United States v. Miller, 589 F. Supp. 3d 60, 78 (DC 2022)).

A divided panel of the D. C. Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Pan, writing for the court, held that the word “otherwise” in Section 1512(c)(2) means that the provision unambiguously covers “all forms of corrupt obstruction of an offcial proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by § 1512(c)(1).” 64 F. 4th 329, 336 (2023). Judge Walker concurred in part and concurred in the judgment because he read the mens rea element of the statute—“corruptly”—as requiring a defendant to act with “an intent to procure an unlawful beneft.” Id., at 361 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Judge Katsas dissented. In his view, the language in subsection (c)(1) narrows the language that comes after the word “otherwise” in subsection (c)(2). He therefore construed Section 1512(c)(2) as applying “only to acts that,” like the ones specifed in (c)(1), “affect the integrity or availability of evidence” at an offcial proceeding. Id., at 363.

We granted certiorari. 601 U. S. ––– (2023).

II

The controversy before us is about the scope of the residual “otherwise” clause in Section 1512(c)(2). On the one hand, Fischer contends that (c)(2) “applies only to acts that affect the integrity or availability of evidence.” Brief for Petitioner 8. On the other, the Government argues that (c)(2) “capture[s] all forms of obstructive conduct beyond Section 1512(c)(1)'s focus on evidence impairment.” Brief for United States 13.

Page Proof Pending Publication Resolving such a dispute requires us to determine how the residual clause is linked to its “surrounding words.” Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528, 536 (2015) (plurality opinion); see, e. g., United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 774–775 (2023). In doing so, “we must `give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of [the] statute.' ” Williams v. Tay lor, 529 U. S. 362, 404 (2000) (quoting United States v. Men asche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1955)). To that end, we consider both “the specifc context” in which (c)(2) appears “and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U. S. 337, 341 (1997); see, e. g., Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U. S. 124, 133 (2024) (choosing between “two grammatically permissible ways” to read a sentencing statute “by reviewing text in context”).

A

Section 1512 provides: “(c) Whoever corruptly— “(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an offcial proceeding; or “(2) otherwise obstructs, infuences, or impedes any offcial proceeding, or attempts to do so, “shall be fned . . . or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

Subsection (c)(1) describes particular types of criminal conduct in specifc terms. To ensure the statute would not be read as excluding substantially similar activity not mentioned, (c)(2) says it is also illegal to engage in some broader range of unenumerated conduct.

The purpose of the “otherwise” clause is therefore, as the parties agree, to cover some set of “matters not specifcally contemplated” by (c)(1). Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. Page Proof Pending Publication 848, 860 (2009); see Brief for Petitioner 12; Brief for United States 12–13. The problem is defning what exactly Congress left for (c)(2). Perhaps Congress sought to criminalize all obstructive acts in Section 1512(c), and having named a few examples in (c)(1), devised (c)(2) to prohibit the rest in one go. The point of (c)(1) would then be to illustrate just one type of conduct among many (c)(2) prohibits; it would be subsidiary to the overarching prohibition in (c)(2). But (c)(2) could well have a narrower scope if Congress designed it with the focused language of (c)(1) in mind. Subsection (c)(1) would then prohibit particular types of obstructive conduct and (c)(2) would fll any inadvertent gaps that might exist. One way to discern the reach of an “otherwise” clause is to look for guidance from whatever examples come before it. Two general principles are relevant. First, the canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 294 (2008). That “avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with” “the company it keeps.” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 575 (1995). And under the related canon of ejusdem generis, “a `general or collective term' at the end of a list of specifc items” is typically “ `controlled and defned by reference' to the specifc classes . . . that precede it.” Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U. S. 450, 458 (2022) (quoting frst Ali v. Federal Bureau of Pris ons, 552 U. S. 214, 225 (2008); then Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 115 (2001)); accord, Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U. S. 246, 252 (2024). These approaches to statutory interpretation track the common sense intuition that Congress would not ordinarily introduce a general term that renders meaningless the specifc text that accompanies it.

To see why, consider a straightforward example. A zoo might post a sign that reads, “do not pet, feed, yell or throw objects at the animals, or otherwise disturb them.” If a visPage Proof Pending Publication itor eats lunch in front of a hungry gorilla, or talks to a friend near its enclosure, has he obeyed the regulation? Surely yes. Although the smell of human food or the sound of voices might well disturb gorillas, the specifc examples of impermissible conduct all involve direct interaction with and harassment of the zoo animals. Merely eating or talking is so unlike the examples that the zoo provided that it would be implausible to assume those activities were prohibited, even if literally covered by the language.

The idea is simply that a general phrase can be given a more focused meaning by the terms linked to it. That principle ensures—regardless of how complicated a sentence might appear—that none of its specifc parts are made redundant by a clause literally broad enough to include them. See Yates, 574 U. S., at 545–546 (plurality opinion). For instance, a football league might adopt a rule that players must not “grab, twist, or pull a facemask, helmet, or other equipment with the intent to injure a player, or otherwise attack, assault, or harm any player.” If a linebacker shouts insults at the quarterback and hurts his feelings, has the linebacker nonetheless followed the rule? Of course he has. The examples of prohibited actions all concern dangerous physical conduct that might infict bodily harm; trash talk is simply not of that kind. See 64 F. 4th, at 365–366 (Katsas, J., dissenting).

Similarly improbable consequences can result from untethering an “otherwise” provision from the rest of a criminal statute. Take Begay v. United States, 553 U. S. 137 (2008) (abrogated on other grounds by Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015)). The question there was whether driving under the infuence qualifed as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). A “violent felony” was defned in relevant part by ACCA as a crime, punishable by more than a year's imprisonment, that “ `is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication risk of physical injury to another.' ” 553 U. S., at 139–140 (quoting 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2000 ed.)). We recognized that, depending on the context, “the word `otherwise' can”—though not “must”—“refer to a crime that is similar to the listed examples in some respects but different in others.” 553 U. S., at 144 (emphasis deleted). And we held that while driving under the infuence certainly may present a serious risk of physical injury, such an offense was so dissimilar from the previously enumerated examples that it could not be classifed as a “violent felony” under the statute. Id., at 142–146. The list of crimes that preceded the residual clause—burglary, arson, extortion, and the use of explosives—focused on “purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct.” Id., at 144–145 (internal quotation marks omitted). And if that focus did not extend to the residual clause, ACCA's 15-year mandatory minimum sentence would apply to a host of offenses “not typically committed by those whom one normally labels `armed career criminals' ” and that were “far removed . . . from the deliberate kind of behavior associated with violent criminal use of frearms.” ¹ Id., at 146– 147.

The “otherwise” provision of Section 1512(c)(2) is similarly limited by the preceding list of criminal violations. The offenses enumerated in subsection (c)(1) cover someone who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object . . . with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an offcial proceeding.” Complex as subsection (c)(1) may look, it simply consists of many specifc examples of prohibited actions undertaken with the intent to impair an object's integrity or availability ¹The dissent explains that we subsequently held the ACCA residual clause void for vagueness. See post, at 512 (opinion of Barrett, J.) (citing Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 597 (2015)). That our answer to the narrow question presented in Begay did not resolve a broader constitutional defect in the statute says little about whether the reasoning of Begay is relevant here.

for use in an offcial proceeding: altering a record, altering a document, concealing a record, concealing a document, and so on. That list is followed immediately by a residual clause in (c)(2). Guided by the basic logic that Congress would not go to the trouble of spelling out the list in (c)(1) if a neighboring term swallowed it up, the most sensible inference is that the scope of (c)(2) is defned by reference to (c)(1).

If, as the Government asserts, (c)(2) covers “all forms of obstructive conduct beyond Section 1512(c)(1)'s focus on evidence impairment,” Brief for United States 13, there would have been scant reason for Congress to provide any specifc examples at all. The sweep of subsection (c)(2) would consume (c)(1), leaving that narrower provision with no work to do. Indeed, subsection (c)(1) would be an elaborate pump- fake: a list of four types of highly particularized conduct, performed with respect to a record, document, or object and “with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an offcial proceeding,” followed in the very next subsection—in the same sentence, no less—by a superseding prohibition on all means of obstructing, infuencing, or impeding any offcial proceeding. Construing Section 1512 in such a way gets the “familiar” analysis we apply to these types of statutes “exactly backwards,” eliminating specifc terms because of broad language that follows them, rather than limiting the broad language in light of narrower terms that precede it. Bissonnette, 601 U. S., at 252, 255. Tethering subsection (c)(2) to the context of (c)(1) recognizes the distinct purpose of each provision. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 208 (2012) (“evident purpose” helps defne scope of catchall provision). As we have explained, subsection (c)(1) refers to a defned set of offense conduct— four types of actions that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an offcial proceeding. When the phrase “otherwise obstructs, infuences, or impedes any offcial proceeding” is read as having been given more precise content by that narPage Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication rower list of conduct, subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an offcial proceeding in ways other than those specifed in (c)(1). For example, it is possible to violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence—rather than altering incriminating evidence. See, e. g., United States v. Reich, 479 F. 3d 179, 185–187 (CA2 2007) (Sotomayor, J.) (prosecution under subsection (c)(2) for transmitting a forged court order). Subsection (c)(2) also ensures that liability is still imposed for impairing the availability or integrity of other things used in an offcial proceeding beyond the “record[s], document[s], or other object[s]” enumerated in (c)(1), such as witness testimony or intangible information. See, e. g., United States v. Mintmire, 507 F. 3d 1273, 1290 (CA11 2007) (prosecution under subsection (c)(2) based in part on the defendant's attempt to orchestrate a witness's grand jury testimony). The dissent supposes that because the word “otherwise” in (c)(2) can mean “in a different manner,” “by other means,” or “in other respects,” (c)(1) and (c)(2) are “distinct and independent prohibitions.” Post, at 507, 510 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the word “otherwise” is not by itself “suffcient to demonstrate that the examples do not limit the scope of the clause.” Begay, 553 U. S., at 144 (emphasis deleted). “Otherwise” can link a set of examples to a general phrase and give it more defnite meaning—even in statutory sentences that rival the complexity of Section 1512(c). See Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U. S. 431, 437–438 (1982); Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers, 493 U. S. 67, 91–92 (1989). It makes sense to read subsection (c)(2) as limited by (c)(1) in light of the history of the provision.

Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 1512 imposed criminal liability on anyone who “knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person” to, among other things, shred documents. 18 Page Proof Pending Publication U. S. C. § 1512(b)(2)(B) (2000 ed.). But the Enron accounting scandal revealed a loophole: Although Enron's “outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents,” the statute curiously failed to “impos[e] liability on a person who destroys records himself.” Yates, 574 U. S., at 535–536 (plurality opinion). As a result, prosecutors had to prove that higher-ups at Enron and Arthur Andersen persuaded someone else to shred documents rather than the more obvious theory that someone who shreds documents is liable for doing so. See S. Rep. No. 107–146, p. 7 (2002).

The parties agree that to plug this loophole, Congress enacted Section 1512(c)—the provision at issue here—as part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the frst place. The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specifed in (c)(1).

B

The broader context of Section 1512 in the criminal code confrms that (c)(2) is limited by the scope of (c)(1). Federal obstruction law consists of numerous provisions that target specifc criminal acts and settings. See 18 U. S. C. ch. 73. Much of that particularized legislation would be unnecessary if (c)(2) criminalized essentially all obstructive conduct, as the Government contends. Section 1503(a), for example, makes it a crime to “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening . . . communication, endeavor[ ] to infuence, intimidate, or impede” any juror or court offcer. Section 1504 covers attempting to infuence jurors through written communications. Section 1505 covers anyone who corruptly obstructs congressional inquiries or investigations. Section 1507 covers picketing or parading in certain locations “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” Section 1509 covers the obstruction of the exercise of rights or performance of duties under court orders. Section 1510(a) covers obstruction of federal criminal investigations through bribery. Section 1511(a) covers certain obstruction of state or local law enforcement with the intent to facilitate illegal gambling. And Sections 1516, 1517, and 1518 address obstructive acts in specifc contexts, including federal audits, examinations of fnancial institutions, and inquiries into healthcare-related offenses. If the Government were correct, then the “otherwise obstructs, infuences, or impedes any offcial proceeding” provision—which is buried in subsection (c)(2) of Section 1512—would largely obviate the need for that broad array of other obstruction statutes. In light of our obligation to give meaning where possible to each word and provision in the Code, Taylor, 529 U. S., at 404, our narrower interpretation of subsection (c)(2) is the superior one.

An unbounded interpretation of subsection (c)(2) would also render superfuous the careful delineation of different types of obstructive conduct in Section 1512 itself. That section provides a reticulated list of nearly two dozen means of committing obstruction, with varying degrees of culpability and penalties ranging from three years to life in prison, or even death. Section 1512(a)(2)(B)(iv), for example, authorizes up to 30 years' imprisonment for someone who uses or attempts to use physical force against another person with the intent of causing him to be absent from an offcial proceeding. See § 1512(a)(3)(B)(ii) (specifying punishment). Page Proof Pending Publication Section 1512(d)(1), by contrast, authorizes only three years' imprisonment for someone who harasses another person and thereby dissuades him from attending an offcial proceeding. Reading (c)(2) to cover all forms of obstructive conduct would override Congress's careful delineation of which penalties were appropriate for which offenses. Most instances of those prohibited acts would instead fall under subsection (c)(2)'s sweeping reach, which provides a 20-year maximum term of imprisonment. Such a reading of subsection (c)(2) would lump together disparate types of conduct for which Congress had assigned proportionate penalties in (a)(2) and (d)(1).² The Government's responses to this surplusage problem are not convincing.

It frst argues that because other provisions in Section 1512 would allow conviction in some circumstances on a “lesser mens rea than `corruptly,' ” they have “a broader compass” than (c)(2). Brief for United States 34. For instance, the Government contends that subsection (b) can be violated by “knowing use of intimidation or threats, or misleading conduct.” Id., at 35. But the Government concedes that “Congress did not defne `corruptly' for purposes of Section 1512.” Id., at 44. And while the Government suggests that “corruptly” is “ `normally associated with wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil' conduct,” ibid. (quoting Arthur An dersen LLP v. United States, 544 U. S. 696, 705 (2005)), it never persuasively explains how “knowingly us[ing] intimi<sup>2</sup>The dissent maintains we have “ `glosse[d] over the absence of any prescribed minimum.' ” Post, at 519 (quoting Yates, 574 U. S., at 569 (Kagan, J., dissenting)). Congress might have thought (c)(2) prohibited conduct of varying severity. But it does not follow that it designed (c)(2) to reach forms of conduct already covered in Chapter 73 with far lower maximum sentences. It would be improper to substitute for those fne- grained statutory distinctions the charging discretion of prosecutors and the sentencing discretion of district courts.

Page Proof Pending Publication dation” or “threat[s]” against someone is not “wrongful.” § 1512(b). The same is true for most other subparts of Section 1512 that the Government identifes as having a lesser mens rea than (c)(2). Brief for United States 34; see, e. g., § 1512(a)(1)(A) (criminalizing anyone who “kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to” prevent attendance in an offcial proceeding); § 1512(a)(2)(B)(iv) (criminalizing anyone who “uses physical force . . . against any person” intending to cause them to be absent from an offcial proceeding). None of those other provisions has a mens rea the Government may more readily establish than the “corruptly” mens rea of subsection (c)(2).

The Government also contends that its interpretation creates no surplusage because Section 1512's other “provisions sweep more broadly than an offcial proceeding.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 64; Brief for United States 34. To be sure, subsections (a)(2)(C), (b)(3), and (d)(2) criminalize various means of preventing someone from giving a judge or law enforcement offcer information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense or a violation of conditions of supervised release. And subsections (d)(3) and (4) make it a crime to harass someone and thereby dissuade them from arresting or prosecuting a person alleged to have committed a federal offense. None of these crimes requires an “offcial proceeding.” But not much if any conduct covered by those provisions would escape the Government's expansive interpretation of subsection (c)(2). For a person to have violated (c)(2), “an offcial proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted.” §1512(f)(1). And because interference with an arrest or with communications to authorities about federal offenses could very well obstruct the initiation of future offcial proceedings, the Government's reading of (c)(2) would still often consume violations of (a)(2)(C), (b)(3), and (d)(2), (3), and (4).

The dissent tries to solve this surplusage problem by arguing that conduct only violates (c)(2) if it has a “ `relationPage Proof Pending Publication ship in time, causation, or logic' ” with an offcial proceeding. Post, at 516 (quoting United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 599 (1995)). Assuming there is such a requirement, it would simply mean that the defendant's actions “must have the natural and probable effect” of interfering with the proceeding. Id., at 599 (internal quotation marks omitted). Such a bar on prosecutions based on “speculative” theories of obstruction, id., at 601, would hardly cabin the reach of (c)(2). The dissent points out that our reading creates some surplusage, too. See post, at 517. In a wide-ranging scheme like Chapter 73, it is true that some provisions will inevitably cover some of the same conduct. But “surplusage is nonetheless disfavored,” and our “construction that creates substantially less of it is better than a construction that creates substantially more.”

64 F. 4th, at 374 (Katsas, J., dissenting).

III

On the Government's theory, Section 1512(c) consists of a granular subsection (c)(1) focused on obstructive acts that impair evidence and an overarching subsection (c)(2) that reaches all other obstruction. Even setting surplusage aside, that novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison. As the Solicitor General acknowledged at oral argument, under the Government's interpretation, a peaceful protester could conceivably be charged under § 1512(c)(2) and face a 20-year sentence. Tr. of Oral Arg. 51–52. And the Government would likewise have no apparent obstacle to prosecuting under (c)(2) any lobbying activity that “infuences” an offcial proceeding and is undertaken “corruptly.” Those peculiar results “underscore[ ] the implausibility of the Government's interpretation.” Van Buren v. United States, 593 U. S. 374, 394 (2021).

Our usual approach in obstruction cases has been to “resist reading” particular sub-provisions “to create a coverall” statute, as the Government would have us do here. Yates, Page Proof Pending Publication 574 U. S., at 549 (plurality opinion); see also Marinello v. United States, 584 U. S. 1, 6–11 (2018); Arthur Andersen, 544 U. S., at 703–704. And there is no reason to depart from that practice today. Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that subsection (c)(2) is designed to impose up to 20 years' imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specifc obstruction statutes. See, e. g., §§ 1503(b)(3), 1505. If Congress had wanted to authorize such penalties for any conduct that delays or infuences a proceeding in any way, it would have said so. Instead, Section 1512 mentions “record,” “document,” or other “object” 26 times. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1512(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B)(i), (ii), (iii), 1512(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), 1512(c)(1), 1512(f). Rather than transforming this evidence-focused statute into a one-size-fts-all solution to obstruction of justice, we cabin our reading of subsection (c)(2) in light of the context of subsection (c)(1). Doing so affords proper respect to “the prerogatives of Congress” in carrying out the quintessentially legislative act of defning crimes and setting the penalties for them. Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 600. We have long recognized that “the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department,” United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820), and we have as a result “ `traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute,' ” Marinello, 584 U. S., at 11 (quoting Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 600). The Government's reading of Section 1512 would intrude on that deliberate arrangement of constitutional authority over federal crimes, giving prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw ft to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment—for example, three years for harassment under § 1512(d)(1), or ten years for threatening a juror under § 1503.

For all these reasons, subsection (c)(2)'s “surrounding words” suggest that we should not give this “otherwise” proPage Proof Pending Publication vision the broadest possible meaning. Yates, 574 U. S., at 536 (plurality opinion). Although the Government's all- encompassing interpretation may be literally permissible, it defes the most plausible understanding of why (c)(1) and (c)(2) are conjoined, and it renders an unnerving amount of statutory text mere surplusage. Given that subsection (c)(2) was enacted to address the Enron disaster, not some further fung set of dangers, it is unlikely that Congress responded with such an unfocused and “grossly incommensurate patch.” 64 F. 4th, at 376 (Katsas, J., dissenting). We therefore decline to adopt the Government's interpretation, which is inconsistent with “the context from which the statute arose.” Bond v. United States, 572 U. S. 844, 860 (2014).

* * * To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an offcial proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 491. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the suffciency of Count Three of Fischer's indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).

It is so ordered.

On January 6, 2021, an angry mob stormed the United States Capitol seeking to prevent Congress from fulflling its constitutional duty to certify the electoral votes in the 2020 Presidential election. See ante, at 484. The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental democratic norm, and those who attempted to disrupt it in this way inficted a deep wound on this Nation. But today's case is not about the immorality of those acts. Instead, the question before this Page Proof Pending Publication Court is far narrower: What is the scope of the particular crime Congress has outlined in 18 U. S. C. § 1512(c)(2)?

In the United States of America, “men are not subjected to criminal punishment because their conduct offends our patriotic emotions or thwarts a general purpose sought to be effected by specifc commands which they have not disobeyed. Nor are they to be held guilty of offenses which the statutes have omitted, though by inadvertence, to defne and condemn.” Viereck v. United States, 318 U. S. 236, 245 (1943). Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis, see, e. g., Cramer v. United States, 325 U. S. 1, 46–48 (1945), and even when the conduct alleged is indisputably abhorrent, cf. Michaels v. Davis, 601 U. S. –––, ––– (2024) (Jackson, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Notwithstanding the shocking circumstances involved in this case or the Government's determination that they warrant prosecution, today, this Court's task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here. I join in the Court's opinion because I agree with the majority that § 1512(c)(2) does not reach “ `all forms of obstructive conduct' ” and is, instead, “limited by the preceding list of criminal violations” in § 1512(c)(1). Ante, at 489–490. I write separately to explain why and how that interpretation of § 1512(c) follows from the legislative purpose that this statute's text embodies.

I

Our goal in interpreting any statute should be “to give effect to the intent of Congress.” United States v. Ameri can Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 542 (1940). There is no question that intent is generally expressed through the text of a statute. See American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 68 (1982). “[H]ewing closely to Congress's will” as embodied in the statute that it wrote “is especially Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication important” when construing laws like this one, which implicate the possible imposition of punitive sanctions. Pugin v. Garland, 599 U. S. 600, 612 (2023) (Jackson, J., concurring). Here, the majority rightly interprets the scope of § 1512(c)(2) by “look[ing] for guidance from” the statutory “examples [that] come before” it—those listed in § 1512(c)(1). Ante, at 487. In my view, the examples that Congress opts to include in the text of a statute evince its intentions concerning what the rule covers and thereby help express a particular legislative purpose.

The majority's football-based example is illustrative. In a football league, says the majority, “a rule that players must not `grab, twist, or pull a facemask, helmet, or other equipment with the intent to injure a player, or otherwise attack, assault, or harm any player,' ” should not be interpreted as being directed at hurt feelings, because the listed “prohibited actions all concern dangerous physical conduct that might infict bodily harm; trash talk is simply not of that kind.” Ante, at 488. I agree. I would add that it is likewise clear from the listed prohibited acts that such a rule is also not addressing far more serious and unexpected conduct than the kinds of acts that the preceding examples describe, which can result in serious and foreseeable physical injuries during a rough-and-tumble football game. By contrast, if a player were to shoot or poison another player, the rule's drafters would expect the police to be called, not a referee. Thus, we conclude that the rule is best understood to be in- apposite with respect to conduct at both extremes of the universe of harmful acts in which a player might conceivably engage.

We recognize this intuitive fact—that there is a certain category of conduct the rule is designed to prohibit—because we recognize, albeit implicitly, that the drafters of this rule have included these particular examples for a reason. We understand that, given the preceding list of examples, this rule was adopted with a clear intent concerning its scope. So, though a broad conception of “harm” is “literally covered by the language” of the rule, ibid., we appreciate that the rule's drafters did not intend for that term to take on its most expansive meaning. Instead, the examples help illuminate what the drafters actually intended the rule to cover. From the preceding list, we can confdently discern that the drafters meant to proscribe only conduct that risks injuries with severity akin to facemask pulling, not trash talk or murder.¹ The upshot is that, when interpreting the scope of a particular statute or rule, our assessment of the words that the drafters used informs our understanding of what the rule was designed to do.² Discerning the rule's purpose is critical when a court is called upon to interpret the provision.

II

Turning to the statutory provision at issue here, the purpose of § 1512(c), refected in its text, is clear. Subsection (c)(1) is indisputably focused on persons who engage in a particular kind of obstructive conduct: Anyone who “corruptly ¹The majority invokes the canons of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem gene ris to support this inference. See ante, at 487. Those canons are useful interpretive tools, but in my view, they are ultimately only devices used in furtherance of achieving our goal of determining “the intent of Congress.” United States v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 310 U. S. 534, 542 (1940). “There is no invariable rule for the discovery of that intention.” Ibid. As one treatise explains, such canons are “not . . . rule[s] of law” but rather “one of various factors to be considered.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 212 (2012); see also id., at 196– 198. We apply these canons because we understand that their principles are consistent with how users of language—including legislators—convey meaning. See id., at 212 (“Any lawyer or legislative drafter who writes two or more specifcs followed by a general residual term without the intention that the residual term be limited may be guilty of malpractice”). As such, they are valid indicia of Congress's purpose.

²Other indicia of the drafters' intent, such as the rule's context or enactment history, can further inform our understanding of the rule. See infra, at 502–505.

Page Proof Pending Publication . . . alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, . . . with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an offcial proceeding.” Subsection (c)(2), in turn, is directed at criminal conduct that “otherwise” achieves a similar result. I therefore agree with the majority that § 1512(c)(2)'s reach is narrower than the Government contends. As the majority holds, § 1512(c)(2) “makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an offcial proceeding in ways other than those specifed in (c)(1)” and to “impai[r] the availability or integrity of other things used in an offcial proceeding beyond the `record[s], document[s], or other object[s]' enumerated in (c)(1).” Ante, at 491.

This understanding of § 1512(c)'s text and purpose is entirely consistent with the statute's enactment history. Congress enacted § 1512(c) as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which “was prompted by the exposure of Enron's massive accounting fraud and revelations that the company's outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents.” Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528, 535–536 (2015) (plurality opinion). When introducing what later became § 1512(c) on the Senate foor, Senator Lott emphasized that its principal purpose was to target document destruction, which was, at the time, prohibited “only if . . . a subpoena ha[d] been issued for the evidence that ha[d] been destroyed or altered.” 148 Cong. Rec. 12512 (2002). “[T]his section,” he explained, “would allow the Government to charge obstruction against individuals who acted alone, even if the tampering took place prior to the issuance of a grand jury subpoena.” Ibid. Similarly, the Senate Report accompanying the proposed statute noted that “current federal obstruction of justice statutes relating to document destruction [were] riddled with loopholes and burdensome proof requirements.” S.

Rep. No. 107–146, p. 6 (2002). According to the Senate RePage Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication port, § 1512(c) was drafted to fll these gaps: “When a person destroys evidence with the intent of obstructing any type of investigation and the matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal agency, overly technical legal distinctions should neither hinder nor prevent prosecution and punishment.” Id., at 7.

Conversely, there is no indication whatsoever that Congress intended to create a sweeping, all-purpose obstruction statute. As the majority notes, “[f]ederal obstruction law consists of numerous provisions that target specifc criminal acts and settings.” Ante, at 492. Outside of the Government's proposed interpretation of § 1512(c), Congress has never enacted “a one-size-fts-all solution to obstruction of justice.” Ante, at 497.³ Meanwhile, many States have done just that. See J. Decker, The Varying Parameters of Obstruction of Justice in American Criminal Law, 65 La.

L. Rev. 49, 77, and n. 236 (2004) (collecting statutes).⁴ The drafters of the Model Penal Code, too, proposed such a general obstruction crime. See ALI, Model Penal Code § 242.1, p. 201 (1980) (“A person commits a misdemeanor if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function by force, violence, physical interference or obstacle, breach of offcial duty, or any other unlawful act”).

³That is not to say, of course, that Congress could not enact such a statute if it so chose. “We have traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute . . . out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress,” United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 600 (1995), not because broad criminal proscriptions are beyond the scope of Congress's power.

⁴See also, e. g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18–8–102(1) (2023) (“A person commits obstructing government operations if he intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders the performance of a governmental function by a public servant, by using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle”); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2921.31(A) (Lexis 2024) (“No person . . . shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public offcial in the performance of the public offcial's lawful duties”).

Given that Congress has never before passed a similarly broad obstruction law when others have long existed, it is highly unlikely that Congress intended for subsection (c)(2) to establish a frst-of-its-kind general federal obstruction crime. Nothing in the enactment history of § 1512(c) suggests that Congress believed that it was creating an all- encompassing statute that would obviate the need for any other obstruction prohibitions.

This conclusion is further reinforced by the fact that, unlike § 1512(c)(2), nearly all of the broad, all-purpose obstruction statutes that various States have enacted are classifed as misdemeanors. See, e. g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18–8–102(3) (2023); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2921.31(B) (Lexis 2024). As a result, these types of obstruction crimes are generally punishable by up to a year of incarceration. See 1 W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure § 1.8(c), pp. 557–558 (4th ed. 2015). That is so for a reason: As the Model Penal Code's drafters explained, “the existence of a residual misdemeanor offense” allows for the “appropriately narrow defnition of the serious forms of obstruction carrying felony penalties.” § 242.1, Comment 2, at 203. “A broad residual offense . . . provides a hedge against the ingenuity of offenders,” since “[n]ot all forms of obstruction can be anticipated and precisely proscribed in specifc offenses.” Ibid. But, at the same time, that kind of broad criminal statute “must incorporate certain limitations lest it nullify policy decisions expressed elsewhere.” Ibid. In other words, these broad misdemeanor obstruction statutes are “amalgam[s] of generality and constraint.” Ibid. The Government's interpretation of § 1512(c)(2), by contrast, exhibits all the generality of these catchall misdemeanor obstruction provisions while displaying none of their restraint. Section 1512(c)(2) is a felony, and it imposes a 20-year maximum sentence—one of the more severe potential punishments in Chapter 73 of the U. S. Code. That stands in contrast with Congress's specifcation that other Page Proof Pending Publication serious obstructive acts warrant “far shorter terms of imprisonment—for example, three years for harassment under § 1512(d)(1), or ten years for threatening a juror under § 1503.” Ante, at 497.

Finally, it is worth remembering the statutory context in which Congress chose to prohibit the obstruction-related conduct we are considering today. The statute Congress wrote addresses this matter in a 13-word phrase, enumerated “2,” that is located within subsection (c) of a much broader § 1512, which itself consists of “a reticulated list of nearly two dozen means of committing obstruction.” Ante, at 493. However we might interpret Congress's drafting choices in other contexts, we should be wary of fnding that a statute addresses signifcant criminal conduct when none of the available indicia of congressional intent, including the prohibition's placement, suggest that Congress intended that result. Here, it beggars belief that Congress would have inserted a breathtakingly broad, frst-of-its-kind criminal obstruction statute (accompanied by a substantial 20-year maximum penalty) in the midst of a signifcantly more granular series of obstruction prohibitions without clarifying its intent to do so—not in the text of the provision itself, nor in the surrounding statutory context, nor in any statement issued during the enactment process.

* * * In my view, the Court properly interprets § 1512(c)(2) in the opinion it issues today. It also rightly vacates the judgment below and remands this case for further proceedings. Joseph Fischer was charged with violating § 1512(c)(2) by corruptly obstructing “a proceeding before Congress, specifcally, Congress's certifcation of the Electoral College vote.” App. 183. That offcial proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer's Page Proof Pending Publication conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specifed in (c)(1).” Ante, at 491. If so, then Fischer's prosecution under § 1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed.

That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.

Joseph Fischer allegedly joined a mob of rioters that breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021. At the time, Congress was meeting in a joint session to certify the Electoral College results. The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours.

The Court does not dispute that Congress's joint session qualifes as an “offcial proceeding”; that rioters delayed the proceeding; or even that Fischer's alleged conduct (which includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt the certifcation of the election results. Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for “obstructing, infuencing, or impeding an offcial proceeding” seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?

Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said. Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?) But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway. The Court, abandoning that approach, does textual backfips to fnd some way—any way—to narrow the reach of subsection (c)(2). I respectfully dissent.

I

The case for the Government's interpretation is straightforward. It can be accomplished in three paragraphs, as compared to the Court's many, many more. Ante, at 486–494.

Page Proof Pending Publication Start with the verbs: To “obstruct” and to “impede” mean to “hinder” or “retard” something's “passage” or “progress.” 10 Oxford English Dictionary 668 (2d ed. 1989); 7 id., at 705. We have previously explained that these words are “broad.” Marinello v. United States, 584 U. S. 1, 7 (2018). To “infuence” is similarly expansive, meaning “[t]o affect the condition of” or “to have an effect on” something. 7 Oxford English Dictionary, at 940. The object of these verbs is an “offcial proceeding,” defned to include “a proceeding before the Congress.” 18 U. S. C. § 1515(a)(1)(B).¹ So (c)(2) covers all sorts of actions that affect or interfere with offcial proceedings.

“[O]therwise,” which introduces 18 U. S. C. § 1512(c)(2), does not narrow its scope. “Otherwise” means “in a different manner,” “by other means,” or “in other respects.” 10 Oxford English Dictionary, at 984; Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1598 (2002). It is often used to introduce a “catchall phras[e].” Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 576 U. S. 519, 535 (2015). Here, “otherwise” tells the reader how (c)(1) and (c)(2) ft together. Subsection (c)(1) prohibits “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing] a record, document, or other object” with “intent to impair [its] integrity or availability for use in an offcial proceeding.” In other words, (c)(1) targets document and object spoliation— classic means of obstruction. Subsection (c)(2) then prohibits obstructing, infuencing, or impeding an offcial proceeding by means different from those specifed in (c)(1), thereby serving as a catchall. The “enumerated” crimes in (c)(1) and the “unenumerated crimes” in (c)(2) are similar “on one specifc dimension”: “the particular similarity specifed after the `otherwise.' ” Begay v. United States, 553 U. S. 137, 150– 151 (2008) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Here, that <sup>1</sup>The D. C. Circuit held, and this Court does not dispute, that Congress's joint session on January 6, 2021, qualifes as an “ `offcial proceeding.' ” 64 F. 4th 329, 342 (2023).

Page Proof Pending Publication means that each crime represents one means through which to obstruct, infuence, or impede an offcial proceeding.

Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress's joint session on January 6th. Blocking an offcial proceeding from moving forward surely qualifes as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer's alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)'s scope.

II

A

Opting for a narrower approach, the Court declines to take (c)(2) on its own terms. Instead, it borrows the evidentiary focus of (c)(1) to hold that a defendant violates (c)(2) only by “impair[ing] the availability or integrity for use in an offcial proceeding of records, documents, objects, or . . . other things used in the proceeding.” Ante, at 498. Other means of obstructing a proceeding—say, by shutting it down—are out. This interpretation might sound faithful to the statute, because the limit comes from a related provision rather than thin air. But snipping words from one subsection and grafting them onto another violates our normal interpretive principles. “ `[W]e ordinarily resist reading words or elements into a statute that do not appear on its face.' ” Dean v. United States, 556 U. S. 568, 572 (2009) (quoting Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29 (1997)). And “ `[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act,' ” we generally presume that Congress did so intentionally. Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983) (quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972) (per cu riam)). The Court's reasons for departing from these rules are thin.

The Court begins with the noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis canons. Ante, at 487. The noscitur canon counsels Page Proof Pending Publication that “words grouped in a list should be given related meanings.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law § 31, p. 195 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). It is particularly useful when interpreting “ `a word [that] is capable of many meanings.' ” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 569 (2016) (quoting Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961)). See, e. g., Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 573–575 (1995) (employing the canon to interpret “communication” in the statutory list “ `prospectus, notice, circular, advertisement, letter, or communication' ”). The ejusdem canon applies when “a catchall phrase” follows “an enumeration of specifcs, as in dogs, cats, horses, cattle, and other animals.” Scalia & Garner § 32, at 199. We often interpret the catchall phrase to “embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specifc words.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U. S. 105, 115 (2001). See, e. g., Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U. S. 371, 375, 385 (2003) (employing the canon to construe the general term in the statutory list “ `execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process' ”).

These canons are valuable tools. But applying either to (c)(2) is like using a hammer to pound in a screw—it looks like it might work, but using it botches the job. Unlike the pattern to which the noscitur canon applies, § 1512(c) is not a list of terms that includes an ambiguous word. So the Court does not do what it does when applying noscitur: select between multiple accepted meanings of the words “obstructs,” “infuences,” and “impedes.” Instead, it modifes those words by adding an adverbial phrase: obstructs, infuences or impedes by “impair[ing] the availability or integ rity for use in an offcial proceeding of records, documents, [or] objects.” Ante, at 498 (emphasis added). The ejusdem canon is an equally poor ft. Unlike the pattern to which ejusdem applies, (c)(2) is “not a general or collective term following a list of specifc items to which a particular statuPage Proof Pending Publication tory command is applicable.” United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 593, 615 (1995) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Instead, (c)(1) and (c)(2) are “distinct and independent prohibitions.” Ibid. Though they share a subject and an adverb—“[w]hoever corruptly”—the two clauses contain different verbs that take different objects. § 1512(c). Moreover, (c)(1) has a separate mens rea provision that further disrupts the connection between the clauses.

To my knowledge, we have never applied either of these canons to a statute resembling § 1512(c). Rather than identify such a case, the Court invents examples of a sign at the zoo and a football league rule. Ante, at 487–488. The zoo example (“do not pet, feed, yell or throw objects at the animals, or otherwise disturb them”) does not help, because it mimics the typical ejusdem format of specifc words followed by a catchall. The list of specifc verbs makes clear that the cleanup phrase (“otherwise disturb”) is limited to conduct that involves direct interaction with the animals. But in the absence of a laundry list followed by a catchall, it is hard to see why the ejusdem canon fts. Ali v. Federal Bu reau of Prisons, 552 U. S. 214, 225 (2008) (“The absence of a list of specifc items undercuts the inference embodied in ejusdem generis that Congress remained focused on the common attribute when it used the catchall phrase”). And § 1512(c) does not follow the laundry-list-plus-catchall pattern.

The Court's football example is only slightly better. As a refresher: “[A] football league might adopt a rule that players must not `grab, twist, or pull a facemask, helmet, or other equipment with the intent to injure a player, or otherwise attack, assault, or harm any player.' If a linebacker shouts insults at the quarterback and hurts his feelings, has the linebacker nonetheless followed the rule? Of course he has. The examples of prohibited Page Proof Pending Publication actions all concern dangerous physical conduct that might infict bodily harm; trash talk is simply not of that kind.” Ante, at 488.

Put aside that it is hard to imagine anyone describing “trash talk” as inficting an “injury” or “harming” a player in a football game. The league rule plainly forecloses the possibility. Consistent with the noscitur canon, “harm” takes its meaning from its companions “attack” and “assault.” And while the Court tries to track § 1512(c)'s structure by adding an extra intent clause, the two clauses in its example are still tightly focused on actions directed at the player. (After all, who is wearing the facemask, helmet, or other equipment?) Given that shared theme, it is easy to understand that the first clause's focus on physical conduct limits the (only slightly) more general clause. But § 1512(c)'s subsections are not so closely related—(c)(1) focuses specifcally on objects in a proceeding, and (c)(2) broadens the lens to the proceeding itself.

Consider a rule that actually mirrors § 1512(c): “Any player who: “(1) punches, chokes, or kicks an opposing player with the intent to remove him from the game; or “(2) otherwise interrupts, hinders, or interferes with the game, “shall be suspended.”

While the specifc verbs in the frst clause involve actions directed at an opposing player, the second clause is a separate prohibition with an entirely different object. Imagine that, just before the opposing team's kicker attempts a feld goal, players leave the sidelines and storm the feld, some tackling referees in the process. Those players have surely “interrupt[ed], hinder[ed], or interfer[ed] with the game,” even though they have not physically injured any opponent. This hypothetical, not the Court's, is analogous to § 1512(c)— and it supports the Government's interpretation.

Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication The Court next recruits help from Begay, which interprets an “otherwise” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Ante, at 488; 553 U. S., at 140. The ACCA defnes a “violent felony” as a felony that “is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Begay holds that the example crimes limit the catchall clause to “crimes that are roughly similar . . . to the examples themselves.” 553 U. S., at 143. So too here, the Court reasons, the list of crimes in (c)(1) limits the “otherwise” clause in (c)(2).

But § 1512(c) is structured differently than the statute in Begay. While § 1512(c) contains two distinct criminal prohibitions—(c)(1) and (c)(2)—the statutory defnition in Begay contained a list of examples followed immediately by a residual clause. The latter structure more readily supports interpreting the general clause in light of the specifcs, much like a statute to which the ejusdem canon would apply.

Moreover, the residual clause at issue in Begay called out for a limiting principle—what is a “serious potential risk of physical injury?” The breadth itself was a cue that the interpreter should read back to fnd some limit. See id., at 142–143. Subsection (c)(2)'s “otherwise” clause, by contrast, stands on its own.

Postscript: Seven years after Begay was decided, we held ACCA's residual clause void for vagueness. Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591, 597 (2015). So the clause is not only distinguishable, but also a poor model for statutory interpretation.

The Court argues that “there would have been scant reason for Congress to provide any specifc examples” in (c)(1) if (c)(2) covered all forms of obstructive conduct. Ante, at 490. Conduct like destroying and concealing records “obPage Proof Pending Publication structs, infuences, or impedes a[n] offcial proceeding,” so Congress could have enacted just (c)(2) and been done with it. On the Government's interpretation, the Court asserts, the second prohibition swallows the frst. If (c)(1) has any function, it must be to cast light (and impose limits) on (c)(2). What the Court does not say is that its rewrite also eliminates the need for (c)(1)'s examples. The Court's interpretation assumes that Congress used a convoluted, two-step approach to enact a prohibition on “impair[ing] the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects for use in an offcial proceeding.” Ante, at 490. So why didn't Congress just say that? And if the Court is right about what (c)(2) means, why do we need the specifc examples in (c)(1)?

Those acts are already covered. The problem of (c)(2) subsuming (c)(1) is therefore not unique to my theory.

It bears emphasis, though, that the broad overlap makes sense, given the statute's backstory. When the Enron scandal occurred, Congress (along with the general public) was taken aback to discover that seemingly criminal conduct was actually not a federal crime. As it then existed, § 1512 had a loophole: It imposed liability on those who persuaded oth ers to destroy documents, but not on the people who them selves destroyed documents. Ante, at 491–492. Congress enacted § 1512(c) to close this “Enron gap.” Subsection (c)(1) deals with the particular problem at hand—document destruction. Subsection (c)(2) refects Congress's desire to avoid future surprises: It is “a catchall for matters not specifcally contemplated—known unknowns.” Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848, 860 (2009).

So contrary to the Court's suggestion, it would not be “peculiar” for (c)(2) to cover conduct “far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the frst place.” Ante, at 492. Enron exposed more than the need to prohibit evidence spoliation—it also exposed the need to close statutory gaps. And in any event, statutes often reach beyond the “principal evil” that animated them. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 79 (1998). That is not grounds for narrowing them, because “it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Ibid. While the Court insists that (c)(1) limits (c)(2), it cannot seem to settle on the “common attribute” in the frst subsection that cabins the second. See Ali, 552 U. S., at 225. On one hand, the Court says that “(c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an offcial proceeding.” Ante, at 491 (emphasis added). This “physical evidence” limitation tracks the District Court's interpretation. See United States v. Miller, 589 F. Supp. 3d 60, 78 (DC 2022). On the other hand, the Court says that (c)(2) prohibits “impairing the availability or integrity of other things used in an offcial proceeding,” such as “witness testimony” or “intangible information.” Ante, at 491. This broader “evidence impairment” theory resembles Judge Katsas's interpretation. 64 F. 4th 329, 363 (CADC 2023) (dissenting opinion).

Both formulations are problematic—and not only because both are atextual. The frst, focused solely on physical items, would leave (c)(2) with almost no work to do. Subsection (c)(1) already prohibits “alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing]” documents, records, or objects. This essentially covers the waterfront of acts that impair the integrity or availability of objects. True, (c)(2) could also encompass “cover[ing] up, falsif[ying], or mak[ing] a false entry in” a record or document. See 18 U. S. C. § 1519. But it seems “unlikely” that Congress used the “expansive” language of (c)(2) “to address such narrow concerns.” 64 F. 4th, at 344. The somewhat amorphous “other things” limitation has the beneft of giving (c)(2) a wider berth, but it is unclear how the Court landed on it. The term does not appear in (c)(1) or in § 1512's surrounding subsections, which Page Proof Pending Publication refer specifcally to records, documents, objects, and testimony. The “other things” formulation comes from the Court, not Congress.

The Court's uncertainty about the relevant “common attribute” is a tell that Congress did not intend to defne (c)(2) by reference to (c)(1). Indeed, “[h]ad Congress intended to limit [§ 1512(c)(2)]'s reach” as the Court asserts, it “easily could have written” the catchall to say “otherwise impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, objects, or other things for use in an offcial proceeding.” Ali, 552 U. S., at 227; see ante, at 491.² It did not, and we should not pretend that it did.

B

The Court relies on statutory context to “confr[m] that (c)(2) is limited by the scope of (c)(1).” Ante, at 492. As the Court sees it, interpreting (c)(2) according to its plain text would render other obstruction provisions, within § 1512 and throughout Chapter 73, superfuous. Ante, at 492–494. The Court exaggerates. Subsection (c)(2) applies only to conduct that obstructs an “offcial proceeding.” The Court highlights several provisions that cover obstruction of in vestigations. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. §§ 1510(a), 1511(a), 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519. The circuits have held that criminal investigations do not qualify as “offcial proceedings.” See, e. g., United States v. Ermoian, 752 F. 3d 1165, 1172 (CA9 2013); United States v. Ramos, 537 F. 3d 439, 463 (CA5 2008).

Likewise, not every provision in § 1512 relates to an offcial proceeding; instead, several target the obstruction of communications to judges and law enforcement about the com²Indeed, Congress could have looked to 18 U. S. C. § 1505 as a model. That statute makes it a crime to “willfully withhol[d], misrepresen[t], remov[e] from any place, concea[l], cove[r] up, destro[y], mutilat[e], alte[r], or by other means falsif[y] any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony” with the intent to obstruct “any civil investigative demand.” § 1505 (emphasis added).

Page Proof Pending Publication mission of federal offenses. 18 U. S. C. §§ 1512(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(C), (b)(3), (d)(1), (2).

The Court responds by stressing that for purposes of § 1512, “an offcial proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted.” §1512(f)(1); ante, at 495. Because obstruction of investigations or communications could end up obstructing the initiation of a future offcial proceeding, the Court reasons that (c)(2) may still swallow those other provisions. But we have previously construed federal obstruction offenses similar to § 1512(c) to require a tighter link between the obstructive conduct and the relevant proceeding. Under the “nexus” requirement, the defendant's conduct must have a “relationship in time, causation, or logic” with the proceeding. Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 599 (adopting nexus requirement for § 1503's omnibus clause). And the defendant must act in “contemplation” of a “particular offcial proceeding.” Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U. S. 696, 708 (2005) (adopting nexus requirement for § 1512(b)(2)). The circuits have unanimously applied this requirement to § 1512(c). See United States v. Young, 916 F. 3d 368, 386 (CA4 2019) (collecting cases). This element eliminates much of the overlap that the Court perceives between (c)(2) and the provisions that do not require an “offcial proceeding.”

Moreover, §§ 1512(a)(1)(A) and (d)(1) prohibit preventing the mere attendance of any person in an offcial proceeding. Preventing attendance will not always have the effect of obstructing, infuencing, or impeding the proceeding. And § 1512(d)(1) makes it a crime to intentionally harass someone and thereby dissuade her from testifying in an offcial proceeding. In contrast to (c)(2), this provision—which carries a signifcantly lower maximum penalty—does not require a defendant to act “corruptly.”

This is not to deny that (c)(2)—if allowed its broad, ordinary meaning—overlaps with several offenses in Chapter 73. See ante, at 492–493. Even so, (c)(2) still leaves a healthy Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication amount of work for other obstruction offenses. And besides, “substantial” overlap “is not uncommon in criminal statutes.” Loughrin v. United States, 573 U. S. 351, 358, n. 4 (2014); see also Hubbard v. United States, 514 U. S. 695, 714, n. 14 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J.). “The mere fact that two federal criminal statutes criminalize similar conduct says little about the scope of either.” Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U. S. 349, 358, n. 4 (2005). That is especially true here, because Congress enacted (c)(2) after it had already enacted other subsections of § 1512, as well as obstruction offenses like §§ 1503 and 1505. The redundancy argument would have more force if (c)(2) “render[ed] superfuous an entire provision passed in proximity as part of the same Act.” Yates v. United States, 574 U. S. 528, 543 (2015) (plurality opinion) (emphasis added). As it stands, the canon against surplusage does not provide any reason to artifcially narrow (c)(2)'s scope.

In any event, the Court's formulation does not begin to cure the statutory overlap. Killing a person with the intent to prevent the production of a record in an offcial proceeding constitutes conduct that impairs the availability of a record for an offcial proceeding. 18 U. S. C. § 1512(a)(1)(B). Using physical force against a person to infuence testimony in an offcial proceeding counts as impairing the integrity of “other things” used in an offcial proceeding. § 1512(a)(2)(A). And impairing the availability or integrity of documents for use in an offcial proceeding will often “infuenc[e], obstruc[t], or imped[e] . . . the due administration of justice.” § 1503(a); see also §1515(a)(1)(A) (“ `offcial proceeding' ” includes “a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States”). Examples abound. See, e. g., §§ 1505, 1512(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(B), (b)(1), (b)(2), (d)(1). “[T]he canon against surplusage merely favors that interpretation which avoids surplusage”—and on that score, the Court's interpretation fares no better than mine. Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 566 U. S. 624, 635 (2012).

Page Proof Pending Publication In fact, the broader statutory context works against the Court's interpretation. Congress did not select the verbs “obstruct,” “influence,” and “impede” at random. Those words were already in § 1503, which prohibits “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, infuenc[ing], obstruct[ing], or imped[ing] . . . the due administration of justice.” We have described this “ `Omnibus Clause' ” as a “catchall,” because it follows several specifc proscriptions against coercive behavior toward jurors and court offcers. Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 598. Courts have routinely declined to “rea[d] the omnibus clause” as limited to “acts similar in manner to those prescribed by the statute's specifc language.” United States v. Howard, 569 F. 2d 1331, 1333, 1335 (CA5 1978) (collecting cases). And Justice Scalia agreed that ejusdem generis did not apply to limit the Omnibus Clause, “one of the several distinct and independent prohibitions contained in § 1503 that share only the word `Whoever,' which begins the statute, and the penalty provision which ends it.” Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 615 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Section 1512(c) follows the very same pattern.

C

The Court concludes with an appeal to consequences: Construing (c)(2) broadly would “expos[e] activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.” Ante, at 496. This fear is overstated.

To begin with, the Court ignores that (c)(2) requires proof that a defendant acted “corruptly.” The meaning of this term is unsettled, but all of its possible defnitions limit the scope of liability. On one proposed interpretation, a defendant acts corruptly by “ `us[ing] unlawful means, or act[ing] with an unlawful purpose, or both.' ” United States v. Rob ertson, 103 F. 4th 1, 8 (CADC 2023) (approving jury instructions for (c)(2)). On another, a defendant acts “corruptly” if he “act[s] `with an intent to procure an unlawful beneft either for himself or for some other person.' ” 64 F. 4th, at 352 (Walker, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (quoting Marinello, 584 U. S., at 21 (Thomas, J., dissenting); alterations omitted). Under either, the “corruptly” element should screen out innocent activists and lobbyists who engage in lawful activity. And if not, those defendants can bring as-applied First Amendment challenges. The Court also emphasizes (c)(2)'s 20-year maximum penalty. Ante, at 496–497. But it simultaneously “glosses over the absence of any prescribed minimum.” Yates, 574 U. S., at 569 (Kagan, J., dissenting).

“Congress presumably enacts laws with high maximums and no minimums when it thinks the prohibited conduct may run the gamut from major to minor.” Ibid. Indeed, given the breadth of its terms, (c)(2) naturally encompasses actions that range in severity. Congress presumably trusted District Courts to impose sentences commensurate with the defendant's particular conduct.

* * * There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute. Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the “pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.” United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984). Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the Executive Branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute within those boundaries. By atextually narrowing § 1512(c)(2), the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches. Cf. ante, at 497. I respectfully dissent.

Page Proof Pending Publication Page Proof Pending Publication Reporter’s Note The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made: None