Murphy v. Smith, Docket No. 16-1067

Interpretation (shall/may):

(…) The word “shall” usually creates a mandate, not a liberty, so the verb phrase “shall be applied” tells us that the district court has some nondiscretionary duty to perform. See Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U. S. 26, 35 (1998) (“The mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion”) (…) If Congress had wished to afford the judge more discretion in this area, it could have easily substituted “may” for “shall.”

Secondary sources: R. Huddleston & G. Pullum, Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ch. 8, §§1, 12.2, pp. 669, 729–730 (2002); Black’s Law Dictionary 1543 (10th ed. 2014); Oxford English Dictionary 504 (2d ed. 1989); Webster’s New International Dictionary 2220 (2d ed. 1950).

(U.S.S.C., Feb. 21, 2018, Murphy v. Smith, Docket No. 16-1067, J. Gorsuch)

La signification du terme "shall" est ici encore confirmée.