You may say that grammar favors your interpretation—as long as you promptly show the reader why: “The grammar supports the taxpayer’s reading because the final modifier logically and grammatically applies to the entire coordinated series, not merely to the last item.”
That’s an argument. This isn’t: “The grammar favors our interpretation.” That’s a conclusion with no visible grammar behind it.
When syntax is disputed, give the reader a compact parse:
- Quote the operative language. Enough to show the structure, not the entire statutory rainforest.
- Identify the issue. What modifies, governs, coordinates with, or refers to what?
- State the rival parse. If it’s grammatically possible, acknowledge it.
- Explain the preference. Use syntax, proximity, parallelism, punctuation, semantic fit, and context—not canon worship.
- State the legal consequence. Explain what the preferred reading covers, excludes, requires, or permits.
Consider this provision: “The board may suspend licenses, registrations, or permits issued after a false statement.”
Here’s what you might say: “The phrase issued after a false statement might modify permits alone or the entire series. Although the nearest-noun reading is available, issued fits all three items, and related provisions treat licenses, registrations, and permits as parallel forms of authorization. The better reading is that the board may suspend a listed authorization only if it was issued after a false statement. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 147–51 (2012) (explaining the series-qualifier canon).”
¸Don’t just announce a canon. Show the reader the syntax, the alternative, and the legal result. Otherwise, “grammar” is merely a robe borrowed for the occasion.