Search the archive.

Our reading is confirmed by Congress's use of the definite article in “when the alien is released.” Because “[w]ords are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them,” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 140 (2012), the “rules of grammar govern” statutory interpretation “unless they contradict legislative intent or purpose,” ibid. (citing Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120, 122–126, 84 S.Ct. 580, 11 L.Ed.2d 559 (1964)). Here grammar and usage establish that “the” is “a function word ... indicat[ing] that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context.” Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1294 (11th ed. 2005). See also Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co., 262 U.S. 200, 208, 43 S.Ct. 580, 67 L.Ed. 949 (1923) (Congress's “use of the definite article [in a reference to “the appraisement”] means an appraisement specifically provided for”). For “the alien”—in the clause “when the alien is released”—to have been previously specified, its scope must have been settled by the time the “when ... released” clause appears at the tail end of paragraph (1).

b—used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class

Turning from "authorized by law," we find another reason to disqualify special counsel as officers under the plain meaning of the Dictionary Act. Mainly, that

Headnote 13

The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”). The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition. *435 This custodian, moreover, is “the person” with the ability to produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court. Ibid. We summed up the plain language of the habeas statute over 100 years ago in this way: “[T]hese provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277 (1885) **2718 (emphasis added); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus” acts upon “the person who holds [the detainee] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody,” citing Wales, supra, at 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050); Braden, supra, at 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (“ ‘[T]his writ ... is directed to ... [the] jailer,’ ” quoting In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439-440 (1867)).

Whether a conviction under this statute requires possession of all (as opposed to any) of the chemicals or equipment necessary to manufacture [**24] methamphetamine under some manufacturing process is a matter of statutory construction. First, we examine the language of the statute, itself. United States v. Health Possibilities, P.S.C., 207 F.3d 335, 338-39 (6th Cir. 2000) HN9 ("The starting point in a statutory interpretation case is the language of the statute itself."). Obviously, the multiple manufacturing methods and the availability of a broad range of readily available chemicals and equipment necessary for each manufacturing process militates against itemizing within the statute all of the possible chemical and equipment combinations by which methamphetamine could be manufactured. Nevertheless, KRS 218A.1432(1)(b) does not read "[p]ossesses chemicals or equipment," or "[p]ossesses some of the chemicals or equipment," or "[p]ossesses any of the chemicals or equipment." It reads "[p]ossesses the chemicals or equipment for the manufacture of methamphetamine." The presence of the article "the" is significant because, grammatically speaking, possession of some but not all of the chemicals or equipment does not satisfy the statutory language.

FN 10

Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of life.”

Over and over again, the question of how to realize this justice led Táíwò to climate change. Given its disproportionate effects on populations for whom the legacies of colonialism and the trans-Atlantic slave trade loom the largest — think the tens of millions of Bangladeshis who stand to be displaced by sea-level rise, or the unique vulnerability of the entire African continent to temperature rise and decreased rainfall — each additional degree of global warming seemed to undermine the good that any reparations project could do.

“Are any of these other measures that we take toward racial justice going to have staying power in a world that’s 3 degrees hotter?” he has said. “In a world where there is rampant instability in our energy and housing systems? In a world of mass human displacement? In a world where the elites of the world feel very threatened?”

The first year of the 118th Congress may not have included any big legislative achievements for small businesses, but it did include a lot of legislative activity aimed at strengthening federal support for America’s small businesses and entrepreneurs—including more than 30 small business committee hearings.

As the new year begins, let’s look back at two important small business developments from 2023 and ahead to what will undoubtedly be a consequential next 12 months.

1AC McDowall 15 – Krystil McDowall (New York Attorney, specializing in Intellectual Property Law), Spring 2015, "A Critical Look at ‘Use’ Under the Landham Act," New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2-2_McDowall_UseUnderLanhamAct.pdf /$antiP/

Critics may suggest that a minimal use approach would stem the incentive to compete embedded in the current use standard and that greater competition is fostered under the current standard by encouraging mark owners to establish themselves as quickly as possible. But this argument must be balanced against the fact that the current use standard systematically works against certain segments of the market, such as trademark owners who are small businesses or start-ups who are simply not able to quickly establish themselves. Adopting the minimal “single sale will suffice” standard of Australian law will allow American trademark owners a period of time after registration in which to establish and grow their business, without requiring immediate success judged by sales volume and significant advertising and marketing budgets. One benefit of this type of qualitative approach is that it fosters greater inclusiveness, which would better encompass the vast crosssection of commercial enterprises within the American landscape. It also means fewer federal registrations would be invalidated. Additionally, this type of approach would provide greater certainty to all trademark owners as businesses would be able to invest in a mark with greater certainty in knowing quality of use, not quantity, is the yardstick upon which a federal registration is measured. A legislative change to a qualitative, bona fide, minimal use focus thereby fosters greater equality.

1AC McDowall 15 – Krystil McDowall (New York Attorney, specializing in Intellectual Property Law), Spring 2015, "A Critical Look at ‘Use’ Under the Landham Act," New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2-2_McDowall_UseUnderLanhamAct.pdf /$antiP/

Many start-up and small businesses have sporadic initial sales patterns for a number of justifiable reasons, including a lack of resources or expertise (if the mark owner is new to the industry) or lack of capital (which may prevent the mark owner from obtaining legal counsel). It follows, then, that the continuous use standard is prejudiced in favor of those brands that are already strong, or have sufficient capital, over those that are starting out. In this way, the continuous use standard under the Act is unequal in its application as the standard is biased in favor of the strong. Where de minimis use is in issue, the law says “might is legally right,” or at least, “legally better.” As a result, the continuous use standard deprives some new or startup businesses from growing a burgeoning brand into a thriving core asset.

Americans’ views of small businesses have become more positive over the past year: 86% now say that small businesses are having a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days, up from 80% in October 2022.

Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats (88%) and Republicans (87%) view small businesses positively.

Most U.S. adults (86%) say small businesses have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country these days, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Small businesses, in fact, receive by far the most positive reviews of any of the nine U.S. institutions we asked about, outranking even the military and churches.

Despite their name, small businesses loom large in the United States. These businesses – defined here as those with 500 employees or fewer – account for 99.9% of U.S. firms, according to the Small Business Administration. While most of these 33 million firms don’t have paid employees, about 6 million of them do. They account for just under half of total private sector employment (46%).

1AC McDowall 15 – Krystil McDowall (New York Attorney, specializing in Intellectual Property Law), Spring 2015, "A Critical Look at ‘Use’ Under the Landham Act," New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2-2_McDowall_UseUnderLanhamAct.pdf /$antiP/

Critics may suggest that a minimal use approach would stem the incentive to compete embedded in the current use standard and that greater competition is fostered under the current standard by encouraging mark owners to establish themselves as quickly as possible. But this argument must be balanced against the fact that the current use standard systematically works against certain segments of the market, such as trademark owners who are small businesses or start-ups who are simply not able to quickly establish themselves. Adopting the minimal “single sale will suffice” standard of Australian law will allow American trademark owners a period of time after registration in which to establish and grow their business, without requiring immediate success judged by sales volume and significant advertising and marketing budgets. One benefit of this type of qualitative approach is that it fosters greater inclusiveness, which would better encompass the vast crosssection of commercial enterprises within the American landscape. It also means fewer federal registrations would be invalidated. Additionally, this type of approach would provide greater certainty to all trademark owners as businesses would be able to invest in a mark with greater certainty in knowing quality of use, not quantity, is the yardstick upon which a federal registration is measured. A legislative change to a qualitative, bona fide, minimal use focus thereby fosters greater equality.

1AC McDowall 15 – Krystil McDowall (New York Attorney, specializing in Intellectual Property Law), Spring 2015, "A Critical Look at ‘Use’ Under the Landham Act," New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-4-No-2-2_McDowall_UseUnderLanhamAct.pdf /$antiP/

Many start-up and small businesses have sporadic initial sales patterns for a number of justifiable reasons, including a lack of resources or expertise (if the mark owner is new to the industry) or lack of capital (which may prevent the mark owner from obtaining legal counsel). It follows, then, that the continuous use standard is prejudiced in favor of those brands that are already strong, or have sufficient capital, over those that are starting out. In this way, the continuous use standard under the Act is unequal in its application as the standard is biased in favor of the strong. Where de minimis use is in issue, the law says “might is legally right,” or at least, “legally better.” As a result, the continuous use standard deprives some new or startup businesses from growing a burgeoning brand into a thriving core asset.

Just as enough tiny droplets of water slowly fill a bucket, the growth of small businesses fills the U.S. economy. Big corporations might get a lot of attention when it comes to creating jobs, but small businesses employ more people and are more resilient when times get tough. Before coming up with something innovative that propelled them into growth, all big businesses once started out small. Not only are small businesses driving the U.S. economy, but they also keep the American dream alive.

According to the U.S. Small Business Association (SBA), small businesses of 500 employees or fewer make up 99.9% of all U.S. businesses and 99.7% of firms with paid employees. Of the new jobs created between 1995 and 2020, small businesses accounted for 62%—12.7 million compared to 7.9 million by large enterprises. A 2019 SBA report found that small businesses accounted for 44% of U.S. economic activity. Without small businesses, the American economy and workforce would be a pretty wild landscape to imagine.

A holding pattern is when an airplane is delayed from its destination, still moving but no longer really getting anywhere. That’s also an apt description of the small-business mood under this president’s anti-growth policies.

At the Small Business Committee, we hear all year long from small businesses, and they are focused on containing losses or holding on to slim gains. Many would like to expand or invest, but few are planning to. They’re working as hard as ever for less reward.

Small businesses don’t get a whole lot of attention in the business world. Business reporters seem to only give press to big businesses—their profit and loss data, their newest product, a corporate scandal. Yet, 99 percent of all businesses in the United States are small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood that keeps the American economy functioning.

Small Business: The Engine That Keeps the Machine Running

Previous Kauffman research has shown that new and young firms are responsible for net job creation, not small businesses in general. This report contrasts business and job creation dynamics in the entire U.S. private sector with the innovative high-tech sector – defined here as the group of industries with very high shares of employees in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and math. These differences are highlighted at the national level, as well as detailing regions throughout the country where high-tech startups are being formed each year.

High-tech firm births were 69 percent higher in 2011 than in 1980, and drilling down within high-tech to isolate just the ICT sector (Information and Communications Technology), new firm births grew by 210 percent. At the same time, private-sector business creation was down 9 percent.

Young firms' up-or-out dynamics are important for an economy's growth. To perfect novel business concepts, a lot of experimentation is required. Success results in improvements in technology (which promote economic growth), but failure is inherent to the experimentation process to which startups disproportionately contribute. The 2018 paper "Growth Through Heterogeneous Innovations" quantifies that 25.7 percent of aggregate growth that comes through innovation is accounted for by entering firms alone.

Young firms' up-or-out dynamics are important for an economy's growth. To perfect novel business concepts, a lot of experimentation is required. Success results in improvements in technology (which promote economic growth), but failure is inherent to the experimentation process to which startups disproportionately contribute. The 2018 paper "Growth Through Heterogeneous Innovations" quantifies that 25.7 percent of aggregate growth that comes through innovation is accounted for by entering firms alone.