"Its" A Problem

Justice Gorsuch has a pronoun problem. No, not that problem.

In any sentence with multiple subjects, I avoid using pronouns. If two people are referenced, and I use "he," there is no way of know which person is being referenced. Even worse is the word "it" or "its." If a sentence has multiple nouns, there is no way to know which noun is being referenced.

Justice Gorsuch made this error in the first paragraph of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas:

In this case, Texas contends that Congress expressly ordained that all of its gaming laws should be treated as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysletadel Sur Pueblo Reservation. In the end, however, we find no evidence Congress endowed state law with anything like the power Texas claims. 

Does "its" refer to the laws of Texas or the laws of Congress? Who knows? The next sentence does not answer that question. Rule of thumb: try very hard to avoid using the word "its" in sentences with multiple subjects.

Comments

[Dilan Esper]

Considering there's a whole opinion that discusses whose gambling laws are at issue, I wouldn't worry about this one.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Obviously no one who reads the whole opinion is going to be confused; indeed I think most readers of the sentence out of context will figure out Texas is the referent. And of course, woe to anyone who relies on Prof. Blackman for writing tips. But I do think his basic point here is right: this is a poorly worded sentence, and would benefit from rephrasing or restructuring.

[Ridgeway]

Jim contends that Bill ate his lunch.

So we are to conclude that we should never use the word "his"? Seems a bit ... heavy handed.

[Libertymike]

Jim contends that Bill ate his, i.e., Jim's, lunch.

[Don Nico]

But, Bill ate his own lunch. Bill is the proximate noun AND the subject of the clause containing the pronoun.

[Libertymike]

Don, did you turn off your sarcometer?

[bernard11]

Good point.

[M L]

But Bill maintains that he hasn't eaten his lunch yet. Jim is Bill's boss and is yelling at him to get back to work.

[BadLib]

From that sentence alone, I honestly have NO idea if Bill ate Bill's lunch or if Bill ate Jim's lunch. Perhaps context would make it clear.

I, however, have given up on pronouns after reading an article in a major newspaper about two individuals, both of whom used "they" pronouns (and happened to be lesbians and at least one was trans but that complication isn't relevant to the confusion except to note that gender/sex etc was a "front facing" topic of the article so I would expect extra attention to pronouns). The article had a sentence reading something like:

A met B for lunch and then they went to the museum.

Even ten years ago I would have interpreted that to mean that both A and B went to the museum since, although "they" was used in a singular sense when gender isn't known or important, it would not have been used in the singular sense when doing so was ambiguous.

Now, however, I have NO idea if both A and B went to the museum, if just A did so, or if just B did so (although the last choice seems the least likely).

[Ridgeway]

"From that sentence alone, I honestly have NO idea if Bill ate Bill's lunch or if Bill ate Jim's lunch. Perhaps context would make it clear."

That is why I wrote it the way I did. Pronoun ambiguity is a somewhat common occurrence in English. Good writers, however, know how to recognize and avoid it. My second point was that they are able to do so without completely abandoning the use of possessive pronouns, which seems to be Josh's bizarre suggestion.

[Squirrelloid]

"Its" obviously refers to Texas, grammatically, because Texas is the subject of the sentence. The sentence isn't ambiguous at all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

"Texas argues that Congress exceeded its powers in passing the National Firearms Act."

[Davy C]

I mean, Congress exceeds *my* powers all the time.

[SMP0328]

In this case, Texas contends that Congress expressly ordained that all of its gaming laws should be treated as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysletadel Sur Pueblo Reservation. In the end, however, we find no evidence Congress endowed state law with anything like the power Texas claims.

The first sentence is obviously referring to Texas law, because how a law passed by Congress be "surrogate federal law"? Also, the second sentence says that the issue is about what Congress did regarding "state law."

[Michael P]

This strikes me as the strongest of several valid reasons that the antecedent of "its" is unambiguous here.

[JBogart]

Your university offers remedial reading classes; you should consider taking one.

[Don Nico]

Damned stupid comment by JB. Its refers "its" should refer to the proximate noun, which in the case of Gorsuch's sentence is Congress. However, the next sentence shows that Gorsuch actually meant Texas.
Yup, Gorsuch wrote poorly but it has nothing to do witha deficiency of its and JB's maxim "never use its" is as stupid as most of his other opinions.

[Krayt]

What would you use for Texas? For Congress? "Their"? Doesn't solve the reference problem.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico is right, although the fix in this case does happen to get rid of, "of its." Thus:

In this case, Texas contends that Congress expressly ordained that all Texas gaming laws should be treated as surrogate federal law enforceable on the Ysletadel Sur Pueblo Reservation.

[Rossami]

I don't see any possibility of confusion here. "Its" clearly referred to Texas. Congress doesn't have any gaming laws that could even possibly treated as surrogate federal law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Rule of thumb: never use the word "its." "

This post is an unusually sensible contribution from Prof. Blackman, but that rule of thumb is a simple rule for simpletons.

[ah....Clem]

Well, it's a sure way to win an argument against the Knights who say "NEE!"

[SRG]

At least Gorsuch has largely stopped using the contractions that marred the text of his earlier decisions.

In most circumstances context does let you know but it is possible to err, and where it is vital to avoid any ambiguity and clarity costs little, it does make sense to prefer the noun to the pronoun. It may violate style heuristics but those should take a back seat to certainty in legal situations.

[John F. Carr]

I remember learning about antecedents in a linguistics class. In a course influenced by Chomsky, I was taught there was a natural binding of pronoun to antecedent that humans would tend to agree on regardless of language. I suspect that is no longer true, Chomsky being out of fashion, which is good because I no longer remember the exact rule I learned.

[ReaderY]

The context makes it pretty clear that the law involved is Texas’.

[JimM47]

Bad take.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If Josh had thought about it a few extra minutes he would have realized "its" can refer only to Texas and he wouldn't have put up this post.

[Leo Marvin]

If Josh had thought about it a few extra minutes he would have realized "its" can refer only to Texas

Maybe.

and he wouldn't have put up this post.

Doubtful.

[Formerly Known as Stash]

"If two people are referenced..." Yes, but how many times does one footnote each of two people in a sentence?

[No One Of Consequence]

It's really not a problem if you look at the context. Would anyone really suppose that the question is whether Congress intended that its own gaming laws (i.e., federal law) should "be treated as surrogate federal law"? The "surrogate" is kind of a tip-off that the "its" refers to a source of law other than Congress.

[fafalone]

I think you're lying, I've obviously got a low opinion of your character but your reading comprehension isn't *that* poor. The context is perfectly clear in the sentence, and even if it wasn't, the next absolutely answers it. You don't even have to be a lawyer to figure it out, an elementary school reading level will do.

If you're not deliberately lying, well I guess that explains how you get so many things so wrong, though how you most things right remains a mystery.