author:
      Per Curiam.
      Justice Stevens,

text:
    ALLEN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. SIEBERT
    ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1680.
    Decided November 5, 2007
   Per Curiam.

Daniel Siebert was convicted and sentenced to death in the State of Alabama for the • murder of Linda Jarman. Siebert’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the certificate of judgment issued on May 22,1990. This Court denied certiorari on November 5, 1990. Siebert v. Alabama, 498 U. S. 963. On August 25,1992, Siebert filed a petition for postconviction relief in Alabama state court. The state courts denied the petition as untimely, however, because it was filed approximately three months after the expiration of the then-applicable 2-year statute of limitations, Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.2(c) (2000-2001), which began to run from the date the certificate of judgment issued. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari on September 15,2000. Siebert did not seek review in this Court. On September 14,2001, Siebert filed a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, see 28 U. S. C. § 2254, in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) established a 1-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition. § 2244(d)(1). The limitations period is tolled, however, while “a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” § 2244(d)(2). Because Siebert’s direct appeal became final before AEDPA became effective, the 1-year limitations period began to run from April 24, 1996, AEDPA’s effective date. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U. S. 214, 217 (2002). Thus, absent tolling, Siebert’s federal habeas petition would be untimely by over four years.

The District Court dismissed Siebert’s habeas petition as untimely, reasoning that an application for state postconviction relief is not “properly filed” if it was rejected by the state court on statute-of-limitations grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed, however, holding that Siebert’s state post-conviction petition was “properly filed” within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2), because the state time bar was not jurisdictional and the Alabama courts therefore had discretion in enforcing it. See Siebert v. Campbell, 334 F. 3d 1018, 1030 (CA11 2003) (per curiam). The Court of Appeals accordingly remanded to the District Court to consider the merits of Siebert’s petition.

While Siebert’s habeas petition was pending on remand in the District Court, we decided Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408 (2005). In Pace, we held that a state postconviction petition rejected by the state court as untimely is not “properly filed” within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2). Id., at 414, 417. Relying on Pace, the District Court again found that Siebert’s state postconviction petition was not “properly filed,” and dismissed his federal habeas petition as untimely. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed and remanded. In a one-paragraph opinion, the court distinguished Pace on the ground that Rule 32.2(c), unlike the statute of limitations at issue in Pace, “operated] as an affirmative defense.” 480 F. 3d 1089,1090 (CA112007). Thus, the court found its prior holding — that Siebert’s state postconviction petition was “properly filed” because the state court rejected it on a non-jurisdictional ground — stood as the law of the case. Ibid.

The Court of Appeals’ carveout of time limits that operate as affirmative defenses is inconsistent with our holding in Pace. Although the Pennsylvania statute of limitations at issue in Pace happens to have been a jurisdictional time bar under state law, see Commonwealth v. Banks, 556 Pa. 1, 5-6, 726 A. 2d 374,376 (1999), the jurisdictional nature of the time limit was not the basis for our decision. Rather, we built upon a distinction that we had earlier articulated in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U. S. 4 (2000), between postconviction petitions rejected on the basis of “‘filing’ conditions,” which are not “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2), and those rejected on the basis of “procedural bars [that] go to the ability to obtain relief,” which are. Pace, supra, at 417 (citing Artuz, supra, at 10-11). We found that statutes of limitations are “filing” conditions because they “go to the very initiation of a petition and a court’s ability to consider that petition.” Pace, 544 U. S., at 417. Thus, we held “that time limits, no matter their form, are ‘filing’ conditions,” and that a state post-conviction petition is therefore not “properly filed” if it was rejected by the state court as untimely. Ibid, (emphasis added).

In short, our holding in Pace turned not on the nature of the particular time limit relied upon by the state court, but rather on the fact that time limits generally establish “conditions to filing” a petition for . state postconviction relief. Whether a time limit is jurisdictional, an affirmative defense, or something in between, it is a “condition to filing,” Artuz, supra, at 9 — it places a limit on how long a prisoner can wait before filing a postconviction petition. The fact that Alabama’s Rule 32.2(c) is an affirmative defense that can be waived (or is subject to equitable tolling) renders it no less a “filing” requirement than a jurisdictional time bar would be; it only makes it a less stringent one. Indeed, in Pace we cited the very statute at issue in this case as an example of such a “filing” requirement. See 544 U. S., at 417, n. 7 (citing Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.2(c) (2004-2005)).

Excluding from Pace’s scope those time limits that operate as affirmative defenses would leave a gaping hole in what we plainly meant to be a general rule, as statutes of limitations are often affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c); Kirkland v. State, 143 Idaho 544, 546, 149 P. 3d 819, 821 (2006) (“The statute of limitations for petitions for post-conviction relief is not jurisdictional. It ‘is an affirmative defense that may be waived if it is not pleaded by the defendant’” (quoting Cole v. State, 135 Idaho 107, 110, 15 P. 3d 820, 823 (2000); citation omitted)); People v. Boclair, 202 Ill. 2d 89, 101, 789 N. E. 2d 734, 742 (2002) (holding that time bar for filing postconviction petition is “an affirmative defense and can be raised, waived, or forfeited, by the State”). What is more, whether a time limit is jurisdictional or an affirmative defense is often a disputed question, as the interpretive history of Rule 32.2(c) itself illustrates, see Ex parte Ward, 46 So. 3d 888, 894 (2007) (noting confusion in the Alabama lower courts over whether Rule 32.2(c) is jurisdictional). Under the Court of Appeals’ approach, federal habeas courts would have to delve into the intricacies of state procedural law in deciding whether a postconviction petition rejected by the state courts as untimely was nonetheless “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2). Our decision in Pace precludes such an approach.

We therefore reiterate now what we held in Pace: “When a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, That [is] the end of the matter’ for purposes of § 2244(d)(2).” 544 U. S., at 414 (quoting Carey, 536 U. S., at 226; alteration in original). Because Siebert’s petition for state postconviction relief was rejected as untimely by the Alabama courts, it was not “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2). Accordingly, he was not entitled to tolling of AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations.

The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting.

There is an obvious distinction between time limits that go to the very initiation of a petition, and time limits that create an affirmative defense that can be waived. Compare the majority and dissenting opinions in John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 457 F. 3d 1345 (CA Fed. 2006), cert. granted, 550 U. S. 968 (2007). The time limit under consideration in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408 (2005), was of the former kind — as the Court’s opinion expressly noted. See id., at 417 (discussing “time limits, which go to the very initiation of a petition and a court’s ability to consider that petition”). The time limit at issue in this case is of the latter, distinguishable kind — as the Court of Appeals correctly stated. 480 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (CA11 2007) (holding that Pace did not address statutory tolling for “a statute of limitations that operated as an affirmative defense”).

It is true that there is language in the majority opinion in Pace that is broad enough to cover both kinds of limitations provisions, but only the former (those that do not operate as affirmative defenses) can even arguably provide a reasonable basis for concluding that an untimely petition has not been “properly filed” within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. I therefore respectfully dissent.

      At the time Siebert’s petition was before the Alabama courts, Rule 32.2(c) provided that “the court shall not entertain any petition,” with certain exceptions not applicable here, “unless the petition is filed . . . within two (2) years after the issuance of the certificate of judgment by the Court of Criminal Appeals.” The Rule has since been amended to provide for a 1-year limitations period, but is otherwise unchanged. See Ala. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.2(c) (2007-2008).

      1 continue to believe, as stated in my dissent in Pace, 544 U. S., at 427, that state timeliness bars that operate like procedural bars (for example, those that require the courts to consider enumerated exceptions) should not determine whether a state posteonviction petition is “properly filed” under AEDPA. Even accepting Pace, however, this case is distinguishable and should not be summarily reversed.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Chief Justice Roberts

license: Public Domain

text:
    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ET AL.
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1287.
    Argued November 5, 2007
    Decided December 4, 2007

      Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Stephen B. Kinnaird, Ileana M. Ciobanu, Matthew J. Warren, James W. McBride, Ellen M. Fitzsimmons, David J. Bowling, and Peter J. Shudtz.

      Douglas Hallward-Driemeier argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Hungar, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Robert D. Kamenshine, and Ellen D. Hanson.

      Warren R. Calvert, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, R. O. Lerer, Deputy Attorney General, Peter J. Crossett, and John D. Cook.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Association of American Railroads by Betty Jo Christian, Timothy M. Walsh, and Michael A. Vatis; for the Council on State Taxation by Stephen P. Kranz and Douglas L. Lindholm; and for the Tax Foundation by Brian E. Bailey. Sheldon H. Laskin filed a brief for the Multistate Tax Commission as amicus curiae.

   Chief Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 prohibits States from discriminating against railroads by taxing railroad property more heavily than other commercial property in the State. Two decades ago, we held that this statute permits an aggrieved railroad to challenge a State’s valuation of its property for tax purposes. Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 481 U. S. 454, 462 (1987). Because the railroad in that case challenged only the State’s application of its valuation methods, we expressly reserved the question whether a railroad may challenge the State’s methods themselves. We answer that question today, and hold that railroads may challenge state methods for determining the value of railroad property, as well as how those methods are applied. The statute provides for nothing less.

I

Congress enacted the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act in 1976. 90 Stat. 31. Called the “4-R Act” for brevity, the law aimed to halt the economic decline of the rail industry by, among other means, barring “discriminatory state taxation of railroad property.” Burlington Northern, supra, at 457; see also Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 336 (1994). The 4-R Act prohibits four separate forms of discriminatory state taxation of railroads. Only the first is at issue here: States, the Act provides, may not “[a]ssess rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the [property’s] true market value . . . than the ratio” between the assessed and true market values of other commercial and industrial property in the same taxing jurisdiction. 49 U. S. C. § 11501(b)(1). If the railroad ratio exceeds the ratio for other property by at least five percent, the district court may enjoin the tax. § 11501(c).

Petitioner CSX Transportation, Inc., is a freight rail carrier with multiple routes across the State of Georgia. As a consequence, it is subject to Georgia’s ad valorem tax on real property. Under Georgia law, most commercial and industrial property is valued locally by county boards. Public utilities such as railroads, however, are initially valued by the State, which then certifies the proposed valuations to the county boards for adoption or alteration. In 2001, Georgia’s State Board of Equalization, a respondent here, put CSX’s ad valorem tax liability at $4.6 million. A year later, the State’s appraiser used a different combination of methodologies to determine the market value of CSX’s in-state property. The result was a significantly higher tax levy. The State estimated the railroad’s 2002 market value at approximately $7.8 billion, 472 F. 3d 1281, 1285 (CA11 2006), a 47 percent increase over the previous year. That brought the assessed value of CSX’s Georgia property to $514.9 million, for a final property tax bill of $6.5 million. Brief for Petitioner 15.

CSX filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, contending that the State’s 2002 tax assessment violated the 4-R Act. The railroad alleged that Georgia had grossly overestimated the market value of its in-state property while accurately valuing other commercial and industrial property in the State. The result, according to CSX, was that its rail property was taxed at a ratio of assessed-to-market value considerably more than five percent greater than the same ratio for the other property in the State.

To make its case, CSX submitted the testimony of its own expert appraiser, who relied on a combination of valuation methods different from those used by the appraiser for Georgia. The CSX appraiser calculated the 2002 market value of the railroad’s property to be $6 billion, not the $7.8 billion figure used by the State. 472 F. 3d, at 1285-1286. CSX maintained that the state appraiser’s valuation methodologies were flawed, and urged the District Court to accept the market value estimated by its expert as more accurate.

The District Court refused to do so. Following a bench trial, the court ruled Georgia had not discriminated against CSX in violation of the 4-R Act because the State had used widely accepted valuation methods to arrive at its estimate of true market value. 448 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1341 (ND Ga. 2005). In the judgment of the District Court, the Act “does not generally allow a railroad to challenge the state’s chosen methodology,” as long as the State’s methods are rational and not motivated by discriminatory intent. Ibid.

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 472 F. 3d 1281. The majority reasoned that the “text of the Act does not clearly state that railroads may challenge valuation methodologies,” and that such a clear statement was required in light of the intrusion on state taxing prerogatives. Id., at 1289. Judge Fay dissented. Id., at 1292. Recognizing the division on this question among the Circuits, compare Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Hyde Park, 47 F. 3d 473, 481-482 (CA2 1995) (a railroad may challenge a State’s valuation methodology), and Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Department of Revenue of Wash., 23 F. 3d 239, 240-241 (CA9 1994) (same), with Chesa peake Western R. Co. v. Forst, 938 F. 2d 528, 531 (CA4 1991) (a railroad may not challenge a State’s valuation methodology), and 472 F. 3d, at 1289 (case below), we granted certiorari, 550 U. S. 968 (2007), and now reverse.

II

“[T]he language of § 1150[1] plainly declares the congressional purpose.” Burlington Northern, 481 U. S., at 461. States may not tax railroad property at a ratio of assessed-to-true-market value higher than the ratio for other commercial and industrial property in the same jurisdiction. In order to apply the Act, district courts must calculate the true market value óf in-state railroad property. A court cannot undertake the comparison of ratios the statute requires without that figure at hand. We said as much in: Burlington Northern: “It is clear from [the Act’s] language that in order to compare the actual assessment ratios, it is necessary to determine what the ‘true market values’ are.” Ibid.

We do not see how a court can go about determining true market value if it may not look behind the State’s choice of valuation methods. Georgia insists there is a clear and important distinction between valuation methodologies and their application. As the State would have it, the statute allows courts to question only the latter. We find no distinction between method and application in the language of the Act, and see no passage limiting district court factfinding in the manner the State proposes. The total lack of textual support for Georgia’s position is not surprising. The dichotomy the State presses would eviscerate the statute by forcing courts to defer to the valuation estimate of the State, when discriminatory taxation by States was the very evil the Act aimed to ban.

Georgia’s position is untenable given the way market value is calculated. Valuation is not a matter of mathematics, as if the district court could prevent discriminatory taxation simply by doublechecking the State’s assessment equations. Rather, the calculation of true market value is an applied science, even a craft. Most appraisers estimate market value by employing not one methodology but a combination. These various methods generate a range of possible market values which the appraiser uses to derive what he considers to be an accurate estimate of market value, based on careful scrutiny of all the data available. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 49-50 (12th ed. 2001).

Georgia’s appraiser in the instant case, for example, used three different valuation techniques — the discounted cash-flow approach, a market multiple approach, and a stock and debt approach. He derived five values from these three methods, ranging from $8,126 billion to $12,346 billion. After selecting a number at the low end of the range and then subtracting another $400 million to account for intangible property not subject to ad valorem taxation, he settled on $7.8 billion as his final estimate of the true market value. 472 F. 3d, at 1284-1285.

Appraisers typically employ a combination of methods because no one approach is entirely accurate, at least in the absence of an established market for the type of property at issue. The individual methods yield sometimes more, sometimes less reliable results depending on the peculiar features of the property evaluated. As the variation in the state appraiser’s market-value range reveals, different methods can produce substantially different estimates. W. Kinnard, Income Property Valuation: Principles and Techniques of Appraising Income-Producing Real Estate 52 (1971).

Given the extent to which the chosen methods can affect the determination of value, preventing courts from scrutinizing state valuation methodologies would render §11501 a largely empty command. It would force district courts to accept as “true” the market value estimated by the State, one of the parties to the litigation. States, in turn, would be free to employ appraisal techniques that routinely overestimate the market worth of railroad assets. By then levying taxes based on those overestimates, States could implement the very discriminatory taxation Congress sought to eradicate. On Georgia’s reading of the statute, courts would be powerless to stop them, and the Act would ultimately guarantee railroads nothing more than mathematically accurate discriminatory taxation. We do not find this interpretation compelling. Instead, we agree with Judge Fay in dissent below: “Since the objective of any methodology is a determination of true market value, a railroad should be allowed to challenge the method[s] used [by the State] in an attempt to prove that the result... was not the true market value of its property.” 472 F. 3d, at 1294.

The State agrees that it may not be possible to fix true market value with any precision. But it draws a different conclusion from this premise. Because any number of estimates are plausible, Georgia argues, the court is as likely to get an accurate result by verifying the application of the State’s methods — so long as they are broadly reasonable — as it is by employing another method altogether. The State warns that allowing railroads to introduce their own valuation estimates based on different methodologies will inevitably lead to a futile clash of experts, which courts will have no reasonable way to settle. At least one of the Courts of Appeals shares this concern. See Chesapeake Western, 938 F. 2d, at 532 (“There is no absolute way to test the assertions of competing valuations ...” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).

Congress was not similarly troubled. It directed courts to find true market value, however elusive. It made that value the objective benchmark for courts’ evaluation of state taxes on railroad property. True market value may well not be a single, precise number, but Congress obviously believed it was susceptible to judicial inquiry and that some approximations were better than others.

Georgia’s grim prophecies notwithstanding, the inquiry the statute mandates is not unfamiliar to courts. Valuation of property, though admittedly complex, is at bottom just “an issue of fact about possible market prices,” Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U. S. 725, 741 (1997), an issue district courts are used to addressing. Railroad property is not frequently sold, but “determinations of market value are routinely made in judicial proceedings without the benefit of a market transaction.” Id., at 742. The District Court in this case made clear that it knew how to find true market value: “In a more typical case, the court would look at both [the railroad expert’s] appraisal and [the State’s] appraisal to determine the true market value of [the railroad].” 448 F. Supp. 2d, at 1338, n. 8. It refused to do so not because true market value is inherently elusive, but because it believed the Act did not allow it to question the State’s methods.

In light of the statute’s directive making true market value a factual question to be determined by the district court, what Georgia is really asking for is a limitation on the types of evidence courts may consider as part of their factual inquiry. If Congress had wanted to impose such a limit by reserving to States the prerogative of selecting which valuation methods may be used, it surely could have done so. Out of deference to the States, for example, § 11501(c) provides that “[t]he burden of proof in determining . . . true market value [shall be] governed by State law.” Congress could easily have included similar language insulating the State’s chosen methodologies from judicial scrutiny. It did not. Like Oklahoma’s argument in Burlington Northern, Georgia’s position in this case ultimately “depends upon the addition of words to a statutory provision which is complete as it stands.” 481.U. S., at 463. We decline to find distinctions in the statute where they do not exist, especially where, as here, those distinctions would thwart the law’s operation.

III

Considering the clarity of the statute, we are tempted to leave the discussion at that. “When we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete . . . .” Rubin v. United States, 449 U. S. 424, 430 (1981). Georgia, however, lodges two objections to our interpretation, each of which merits a reply. First, the State argues that any interpretation of the Act allowing courts to question state valuation methods ignores the background principles of federalism against which the statute was enacted. The majority below expressed a similar concern. “The selection of a valuation methodology,” it ruled, “is part of th[e] fundamental power of a state [to tax],” 472 F. 3d, at 1288, and should not be limited absent a clear statement from Congress. We have long held that the means States adopt to collect their taxes “should be interfered with as little as possible.” Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108, 110 (1871). But we are persuaded that allowing railroads to challenge a State’s valuation methodologies has been clearly authorized by the terms of the 4-R Act.

As an initial matter, we question Georgia’s contention that its selection of valuation methodologies is an important state policy choice intimately connected to its tax power. Georgia does not prescribe any particular methodology as a matter of state law. Its appraisers use different methodologies in different combinations, as they see fit. See 472 F. 3d, at 1284-1285 (explaining that the state appraiser employed multiple methods and selected a value according to his best judgment). This suit, in fact, is the result of an individual appraiser’s decision to employ a different combination of assessment techniques than that used by his immediate predecessors. The methods he selected were his choice, not the dictate of any state statute or regulation. Ibid.

But even if important questions of state policy are, as the Eleventh Circuit believed, “intertwined with the selection of a valuation methodology,” id., at 1288, judicial scrutiny of those methodologies is authorized by the 4-R Act’s clear command to find true market value. As we explained above, the power to calculate true market value necessarily includes the power to look behind a State’s valuation methods. That the statute should vest this authority in the Nation’s courts is hardly surprising, given Congress’s conclusion that the States were assessing railroad property unfairly.

Our decision in Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332 (1994), is not to the contrary. That case concerned a different provision of the 4-R Act— namely, the command in § 11501(b)(4) preventing a State from “[i]mpos[ing] another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation” in the taxing jurisdiction. This bar on facially discriminatory taxes, we held, did not prevent a State from exempting certain nonrailroad property from otherwise generally applicable ad valorem taxes. Id., at 343. At the time the 4-R Act was adopted, a majority of States exempted one or more classes of business property from ad valorem taxation, “including business inventories, raw materials used in textile manufacturing, . . . and mechanics tools,” to name just a few. Id., at 344. The States had provided such property tax exemptions for years. In the face of this widespread and historical practice, we declined to read the 4-R Act to prohibit a type of tax exemption the text did not expressly mention. Ibid.

By contrast, we pointedly noted that the Act “prohibit[s] discriminatory tax rates and assessment ratios in no uncertain terms . . . and set[s] forth precise standards for judicial scrutiny of challenged rate and assessment practices.” Id., at 343. Georgia’s claim that court review of state valuation methodologies is not authorized by a clear statement in the Act ignores the statute’s explicit prohibition of discriminatory assessment ratios. A district court cannot accurately calculate or compare those ratios without determining true market value. Congress clearly permitted courts to question state valuation methodologies when it banned discriminatory assessment ratios and made true market value a question to be litigated in federal court.

Georgia also protests that our interpretation will destroy the States’ discretion to choose their own valuation methodologies. We disagree. A State may use whatever method or methods it likes, so long as the result is not discriminatory. The Act does not prohibit the use of any valuation methodology. It prohibits discrimination. Far from requiring States to follow a particular method, we hold only that nothing in the statute prevents a railroad from attempting to show that the methods chosen by the State result in a discriminatory determination of true market value.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is reversed.

It is so ordered.

       The portion of the Act that concerns us here, §306, was originally codified at 49 U. S. C. §26c (1976 ed.). In 1978, Congress recodified it at 49 U. S. C. § 11503 (1976 ed., Supp. II). Congress recodified it again in 1995, without substantive change, this time as §11501. For convenience, all references to the statute are to the text of § 11501.

       Section 11501 reads, in relevant part:
      “(b) The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce, and a State, subdivision of a State, or authority acting for a State or subdivision of a State may not do any of them:

        “(1) Assess rail transportation property at' a value that has a' higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property.
      “(2) Levy or collect a tax on an assessment that may not be made under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
      “(3) Levy or collect an ad valorem property tax on rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the tax rate applicable to commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction.
      “(4) Impose another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part.”

       Section 11501(e) provides:
      “Notwithstanding section 1341 of title 28 and without regard to the amount in controversy or citizenship of the parties, a district court of the United States has jurisdiction, concurrent with other jurisdiction of courts of the United States and the States, to prevent a violation of subsection (b) of this section. Relief may be granted under this subsection only if the ratio of assessed value to true market value of rail transportation property exceeds by at least 5 percent the ratio of assessed value to true market value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction. The burden of proof in determining assessed value and true market value is governed by State law. If the ratio of the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the assessment jurisdiction to the true market value of all other commercial and industrial property cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the district court through the random-sampling method known as a sales assessment ratio study (to be carried out under statistical principles applicable to such a study), the court shall find, as a violation of this section—
      “(1) an assessment of the rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the assessed value of all other property subject to a property tax levy in the assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of all other commercial and industrial property; and
      “(2) the collection of an ad valorem property tax on the rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the tax ratio rate applicable to taxable property in the taxing district.”

       Georgia assesses public utilities using the “unit rule.” Under this rule, “an appraiser first determines the value of all assets of an entity, regardless of location,” then multiplies “by the percentage of the entity located within [the State] to determine what portion of the value of the company should be allocated to the state.” 472 F. 3d 1281, 1283 (CA11 2006). The parties agree the unit rule is the appropriate rule for valuing CSX’s property. There are, however, numerous methods available to value property under the unit rule, and many of these methods themselves have multiple variations. See id., at 1284.


author: Justice Ginsburg

text:
    LOGAN v. UNITED STATES
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6911.
    Argued October 30, 2007
    Decided December 4, 2007

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Richard A. Coad argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Brian T. Fahl and Jeffrey T. Green.

      Daryl Joseffer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Joel M. Gershowitz

        Stephen P. Halbrook filed a brief for the National Rifle Association of America, Inc., as amicus curiae urging reversal. Elliot H. Scherker, Julissa Rodriguez, Peter Goldberger, Mary Price, and Barbara E. Bergman filed a brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as amici curiae.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner James D. Logan pleaded guilty in a United States District Court to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). Logan’s record as a recidivist, which included three relevant state convictions, led the District Court to impose a 15-year prison term, the minimum sentence mandated by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). For ACCA sentence-enhancement purposes, a prior conviction may be disregarded if the conviction “has been expunged, or set aside,” or the offender “has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored.” §921(a)(20) (2000 ed.). None of Logan’s prior convictions have been expunged or set aside. Nor has he been pardoned for any past crime. And, bearing importantly on the instant petition, the three state-court convictions that triggered Logan’s ACCA-enhanced sentence occasioned no loss of civil rights.

Challenging his enhanced sentence, Logan presents this question: Does the “civil rights restored” exemption contained in § 921(a)(20) encompass, and therefore remove from ACCA’s reach, state-court convictions that at no time deprived the offender of civil rights? We hold that the §921(a)(20) exemption provision does not cover the case of an offender who retained civil rights at all times, and whose legal status, postconviction, remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation.

Section 921(a)(20) sets out postconviction events— expungement, set aside, pardon, or restoration of civil rights — that extend to an offender a measure of forgiveness, relieving him from some or all of the consequences of his conviction. Congress might have broadened the § 921(a)(20) exemption provision to cover convictions attended by no loss of civil rights. The national lawmakers, however, did not do so. Section 921(a)(20)’s failure to exempt convictions that do not revoke civil rights produces anomalies. But so does the extension of the § 921(a)(20) exemption that Logan advances.

We are not equipped to say what statutory alteration, if any, Congress would have made had its attention trained on offenders who retained civil rights; nor can we recast § 921(a)(20) in Congress’ stead.

I

Federal law generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). Ordinarily, the maximum felon-in-possession sentence is ten years. See § 924(a)(2). If the offender’s prior criminal record includes at least three convictions for “violent felon[ies]” or “serious drug offense[s],” however, the maximum sentence increases to life, and ACCA mandates a minimum term of 15 years. § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V).

Congress defined the term “violent felony” to include specified crimes “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” § 924(e)(2)(B) (2000 ed.). An offense classified by a State as a misdemeanor, however, may qualify as a “violent felony” for ACCA-enhancement purposes (or as a predicate for a felon-in-possession conviction under § 922(g)) only if the offense is punishable by more than two years in prison. § 921(a)(20)(B).

In Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U. S. 103 (1983), we held that a State’s expungement of a conviction did not nullify the conviction for purposes of the firearms disabilities Congress placed in §§ 922(g)(1) and (h)(1). In so ruling, we noted that our decision would ensure greater uniformity in federal sentences. See id., at 119-120. Provisions for expungement “var[ied] widely from State to State,” we observed, id., at 120, and yielded “nothing less than a national patchwork,” id., at 122.

In the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), 100 Stat. 449, Congress amended §921(a)(20) in response to Dickerson’s holding that, for purposes of federal firearms disabilities, state law did not determine the present impact of a prior conviction. The amended provision excludes from qualification as a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” (or a misdemeanor under state law punishable by more than two years in prison):

“Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored ... unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.” 18 U. S. C. § 921(a)(20).

While § 921(a)(20) does not define the term “civil rights,” courts have held, and petitioner agrees, that the civil rights relevant under the above-quoted provision are the rights to vote, hold office, and serve on a jury. See Brief for Petitioner 13, n. 10; cf. Caron v. United States, 524 U. S. 308, 316 (1998).

II

On May 31, 2005, police officers responded to a domestic disturbance complaint made by Logan’s girlfriend, Asenath Wilson. App. 9, 12. Wilson told the officers, among other things, that she had seen Logan with a gun and that he usually kept it in the car. Id., at 9. Logan, who was with Wilson when the police arrived, consented to a search of his car. Id., at 11. In a hidden compartment behind the glove box, the officers found a 9-millimeter handgun. Id., at 9-10, 12.

Logan pleaded guilty to the federal offense of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. Id., at 12. (In 1991, he had been convicted in an Illinois court of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. Id., at 9-10, 12.) The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin sentenced Logan to imprisonment for 15 years, the mandatory minimum under ACCA. In imposing that enhanced sentence, the District Court took account of Logan’s three Wisconsin misdemeanor battery convictions, each punishable by a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Id., at 16-18.

Both in the District Court and on appeal, Logan argued that his Wisconsin misdemeanor convictions did not qualify as ACCA predicate offenses because they caused no loss of his civil rights. Rights retained, he urged, are functionally equivalent to rights revoked but later restored. If the exemption contained in §921(a)(20) covered the three state-court misdemeanor convictions, Logan’s maximum sentence, in lieu of the 15-year mandatory minimum under ACCA, would have been ten years, see § 924(a)(2), and the United States Sentencing Guidelines would have indicated a sentence range of 37 to 46 months, see Brief for Petitioner 5. The District Court rejected Logan’s argument, holding that the § 921(a)(20) exemption provision “applies only to defendants whose civil rights were both lost and restored pursuant to state statutes.” App. in No. 05-CR-088-S-01 (WD Wis.), p. 11. Accordingly, the court sentenced Logan to imprisonment for 15 years. Id., at 12.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that “an offender whose civil rights have been neither diminished nor returned is not a person who ‘has had civil rights restored.’” 453 F. 3d 804, 805 (2006). Logan’s argument for treating retained rights the same way as restored rights, the appeals court observed, “go[es] in the teeth of [§ 921(a)(20)’s] text.” Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 549 U. S. 1204 (2007), to resolve a split among the Circuits as to whether § 921(a)(20)’s exception for “civil rights restored” should be interpreted to include civil rights retained at all times. Compare 453 F. 3d, at 809 (case below) (“civil rights restored” does not include civil rights never revoked), and McGrath v. United States, 60 F. 3d 1005 (CA2 1995) (same), with United States v. Indelicato, 97 F. 3d 627, 631 (CA1 1996) (“civil rights restored” includes civil rights never lost).

Ill

Logan pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of § 922(g)(l), and received a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence because he had at least three prior convictions for “violent felon[ies].” § 924(e)(1) (2000 ed., Supp. V). He acknowledges his convictions in Wisconsin'for three battery offenses that facially qualify as violent felonies under § 921(a)(20)(B) (2000 ed.). See Brief for Petitioner 4-5. Thus the sole matter in dispute is whether Logan fits within the exemption from an ACCA-enhanced sentence for convictions “expunged, or set aside” or offenders who “ha[ve] been pardoned or ha[ve] had civil rights restored.” §921(a)(20). None of Logan’s battery convictions have been expunged, set aside, or pardoned. See 458 F. 3d, at 809. Under Wisconsin law, felons lose but can regain their civil rights and can gain the removal of firearms disabilities. See Wis. Stat. §6.03(l)(b) (Supp. 2006); Wis. Const., Art. XIII, § 3(2); Wis. Stat. § 756.02 (2001); § 973.176(1) (2007). Persons convicted of misdemeanors, however, even if they are repeat offenders, generally retain their civil rights and are not subject to firearms disabilities..

With this background in view, we turn to the proper interpretation of the § 921(a)(20) exemption from ACCA-enhanced sentencing for offenders who have had their “civil rights restored.” Logan’s misdemeanor convictions, we reiterate, did not result in any loss of the rights to vote, hold public office, or serve on juries. Should he nonetheless be ranked with offenders whose rights were terminated but later restored? The ordinary meaning of the word “restored” affords Logan no aid. In line with dictionary definitions, the Court of Appeals stated: “The word ‘restore’ means to give back something that had been taken away.” 453 F. 3d, at 805. Accord McGrath, 60 F. 3d, at 1007 (“The ‘restoration’ of a thing never lost or diminished is a definitional impossibility.”); cf. Indelicato, 97 F. 3d, at 629 (“Clearly the ordinary reading of the word ‘restored’ supports the government.”).

The context in which the word “restored” appears in § 921(a)(20) counsels adherence to the word’s ordinary meaning. Words in a list are generally known by the company they keep. E. g., Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U. S. 26, 36 (1990); Beecham v. United States, 511 U. S. 368, 371 (1994). In § 921(a)(20), the words “civil rights restored” appear in the company of the words “expunged,” “set aside,” and “pardoned.” Each term describes a measure by which the government relieves an offender of some or all of the consequences of his conviction. In contrast, a defendant who retains rights is simply left alone. He receives no status-altering dispensation, no token of forgiveness from the government.

Opposing a plain-meaning approach to the language Congress enacted, Logan relies dominantly on the harsh results a literal reading could yield: Unless retention of rights is treated as legally equivalent to restoration of rights, less serious offenders will be subject to ACCA’s enhanced penalties while more serious offenders in the same State, who have had civil rights restored, may escape heightened punishment. E. g., Reply Brief 8 (“[individuals who have committed more serious crimes than Petitioner may nonetheless have their rights restored, whereas misdemeanants who never lost their rights must suffer enhanced sentencing.”). Logan urges that this result — treating those who never lost their civil rights more harshly than those who lost, then regained, those rights — is not merely anomalous; it rises to the level of the absurd, particularly in States where restoration of civil rights is automatic and occurs immediately upon release from prison. See Caron, 524 U. S., at 313 (automatic restoration of rights qualifies for § 921(a)(20)’s exemption).

Logan’s argument, we note, overlooks § 921(a)(20)’s “unless” clause. Under that provision, an offender gains no exemption from ACCA’s application through an expungement, set-aside, pardon, or restoration of civil rights if the dispensation “expressly provides that the [offender] may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.” Many States that restore felons’ civil rights (or accord another measure of forgiveness) nonetheless impose or retain firearms disabilities.

See Brief for United States 30 (citing, inter alia, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:95.1(C) (West Supp. 2007), under which felons’ firearms disabilities are lifted only after ten years and only if no further felony convictions intervene). We further note that Wisconsin has addressed, and prospectively eliminated, the anomaly Logan asserts he encountered: Wisconsin no longer punishes misdemeanors by more than two years of imprisonment, and thus no longer has any misdemeanors that qualify as ACCA predicates. See supra, at 29, n. 2.

One can demur to Logan’s argument that a literal reading of § 921(a)(20) could produce anomalous results, for the resolution he proposes — reading into the exemption convictions under which civil rights are retained — would correct one potential anomaly while creating others. See McGrath, 60 F. 3d, at 1009. Under Logan’s proposed construction, the most dangerous recidivists in a State that does not revoke any offender’s civil rights could fall within § 921(a)(20)’s exemption. For example, Maine does not deprive any offenders of their civil rights. See Lodging for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. as Amici Curiae (NACDL Lodging), App. 1, pp. 23-24. As Logan would have us read §921(a)(20), all Maine crimes, including first-degree murder, would be treated as crimes for which “civil rights [have been] restored,” while less serious crimes committed elsewhere would not.

In McGrath, the Second Circuit incisively identified Congress’ response to Dickerson, see supra, at 27-28, as the cause of the multiple anomalies § 921(a)(20) may produce:

“[Congress’] decision to have restoration triggered by events governed by state law insured anomalous results. The several states have considerably different laws governing pardon, expungement, and forfeiture and restoration of civil rights. Furthermore, states have drastically different policies as to when and under what circumstances such discretionary acts of grace should be extended. . . . [Anomalies generated by § 921(a)(20)] are the inevitable consequence of making access to the exemption depend on the differing laws and policies of the several states.” 60 F. 3d, at 1009.

Accord 453 F. 3d, at 807 (“When Congress replaced Dicker-so[nJ ... it ensured that similarly situated people would be treated differently — for states vary widely in which if any civil rights a convict loses and whether these rights are restored.”). See also M. Love, Relief from the Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction: A State-by-State Resource Guide (2006), updated online at http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx? PublieationID=486 (as visited Nov. 27, 2007, and in Clerk of Court’s case file) (surveying state practices).

Were we to accept Logan’s argument, it bears emphasis, we would undercut § 921(a)(20)(B), which places within ACCA’s reach state misdemeanor convictions punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. Because state-law misdemeanors generally entail no revocation of civil rights, Logan’s proposed reading of the word “restored” to include “retained” would yield this curiosity: An offender would fall within ACCA’s reach if his three prior offenses carried potential prison terms of over two years, but that same offender would be released from ACCA’s grip by virtue of his retention of civil rights. We are disinclined to say that what Congress imposed with one hand (exposure to ACCA) it withdrew with the other (exemption from ACCA).

We may assume, arguendo, that when Congress revised § 921(a)(20) in 1986, see supra, at 27-28, it labored under the misapprehension that all offenders — misdemeanants as well as felons — forfeit civil rights, at least temporarily. Even indulging the further assumption that courts may repair such a congressional oversight or mistake, we could hardly divine the revision the Legislature would favor. Perhaps Congress would choose to exempt offenders who never lost their civil rights. See McGrath, 60 F. 3d, at 1009. But it is also plausible that Congress would remove the exemption for civil rights restoration as insufficiently indicative of official forgiveness. Or, Congress might elect to include restorations of civil rights along with expungements, set-asides, and pardons only if the restoration was nonautomatic, i. e., granted on a case-by-case basis. Homing in on the disparities resulting from diverse state legislation, see supra, at 33-34 and this page, Congress might even revise § 921(a)(20) to provide, in accord with Dickerson, that federal rather than state law defines a conviction for purposes of §§ 922 and 924. See 453 F. 3d, at 806-807.

In all events, a measure adopted ten years after § 921(a)(20) was given its current shape cautions against any assumption that Congress did not mean to deny that exemption to offenders who retained their civil rights. In 1996, Congress enacted § 922(g)(9), which outlaws possession of a firearm by anyone “who has been convicted ... of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” See Pub. L. 104-208, Tit. VI, §658, 110 Stat. 3009-371 to 3009-372. Tailored to § 922(g)(9), Congress adopted a definitional provision, corresponding to § 921(a)(20), which reads:

“A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of [a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence] if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.” 18 U. S. C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).

Section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) tracks §921(a)(20) in specifying expungement, set-aside, pardon, or restoration of rights as dispensations that can cancel lingering effects of a conviction. But the emphasized parenthetical qualification shows that the words “civil rights restored” do not cover a person whose civil rights were never taken away. See 453 F. 3d, at 808. Section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) casts considerable doubt on Logan’s hypothesis that, had Congress adverted to the issue when it drafted § 921(a)(20), it would have placed in the same category persons who regained civil rights and persons who retained civil rights.

Congress’ enactment of § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) is also relevant to Logan’s absurdity argument. See supra, at 32. Statutory terms, we have held, may be interpreted against their literal meaning where the words “could not conceivably have been intended to apply” to the case at hand. Cabell v. Markham, 148 F. 2d 737, 739 (CA2) (L. Hand, J.), aff’d, 326 U. S. 404 (1945); see Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 511 (1989) (Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) “can’t mean what it says” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In this case, it can hardly be maintained that Congress could not have meant what it said. Congress explicitly distinguished between “restored” and “retained” in § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii). It is more than “conceivable” that the Legislature, albeit an earlier one, see supra, at 27-28, meant to do the same in § 921(a)(20).

In sum, Congress framed § 921(a)(20) to serve two purposes. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29. It sought to qualify as ACCA predicate offenses violent crimes that a State classifies as misdemeanors yet punishes by a substantial term of imprisonment, i. e., more than two years. See § 921(a)(20)(B). Congress also sought to defer to a State’s dispensation relieving an offender from disabling effects of a conviction. See supra, at 27-28. Had Congress included a retention-of-rights exemption, however, the very misdemeanors it meant to cover would escape ACCA’s reach. See supra, at 34-35. Logan complains of an anomalous result. Yet the solution he proposes would also produce anomalies. See supra,, at 33. Having no warrant to stray from § 921(a)(20)’s text, we hold that the words “civil rights restored” do not cover the case of an offender who lost no civil rights.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is

Affirmed.

      FOPA, 100 Stat. 449, included a “safety valve” provision under which persons subject to federal firearms disabilities, including persons whose civil rights have not been restored, may apply to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities. See 18 U. S. C. § 925(c) (2000 ed., Supp. V). The relief provision has been rendered inoperative, however, for Congress has repeatedly barred the Attorney General from using appropriated funds “to investigate or act upon [relief] applications.” United States v. Bean, 537 U. S. 71, 74-75 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The bar on funding was renewed every year from 1992 through 2006. See id., at 75, n. 3 (1992 through 2002); Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, 117 Stat. 433; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, 118 Stat. 53; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,118 Stat. 2859; Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, 119 Stat. 2290.

       Under Wisconsin law, misdemeanor battery is ordinarily punishable by a maximum term of nine months. See Wis. Stat. §940.19(1) (2005); § 939.51(3). Logan was exposed to a three-year maximum term for each offense, however, because he was convicted as a “repeater” or “habitual” criminal. See App. 16-17; Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1999-2000).
      Postdating Logan’s battery convictions, Wisconsin prospectively reduced the maximum term for “repeater” misdemeanors to two years. See 2001 Wis. Act 109, §562 (Jan. 2002 special session) (amending Wis. Stat. § 939.62). Misdemeanors committed in Wisconsin after this reduction no longer qualify as “violent felonies” under 18 U. S. C. §921(a)(20).
      Logan has never argued that his Wisconsin convictions should not count as ACCA predicates because they were punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment solely because of his status as a recidivist offender. We express no opinion on this matter. Cf. United States v. Rodriquez, 464 F. 3d 1072 (CA9 2006), cert, granted, 551 U. S. 1191 (2007).

       See, e. g., Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1936 (1993) (defining “restore” to mean “give back (as something lost or taken away)”); American Heritage Dictionary 1486 (4th ed. 2000) (defining “restore” to mean “bring back into existence or use; reestablish”); 13 Oxford English Dictionary 755 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “restore” to mean “give back, [or] make return or restitution of (anything previously taken away or lost)”).

       Courts have divided on the question whether § 921(a)(20)’s “unless” clause is triggered whenever state law provides for the continuation of firearm proscriptions, or only when the State provides individual notice to the offender of the firearms disabilities. Compare, e. g., United States v. Cassidy, 899 F. 2d 543, 549 (CA6 1990) (courts must look to “the whole of state law”), with United States v. Gallaher, 275 F. 3d 784, 791, and n. 3 (CA9 2001) (individualized notice is required). We express no opinion on this issue.

       See NACDL Lodging, App. 1 (compiling state laws); id., at 17-34 (indicating that Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, and New Hampshire revoke no misdemeanant’s civil rights, but provide for punishment of certain crimes they classify as misdemeanors by prison terms exceeding two years).

       But see Iselin v. United States, 270 U. S. 245, 251 (1926) (“enlargement of [a statute] by [a] court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope . . . transcends the judicial function”).