136 S. Ct. 958 (2016)
In April 2000, Avondale Lockhart was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree under N.Y. Penal Law Ann. §130.65(1).1
The crime involved his then-53-year-old girlfriend.2 Eleven years later, Lockhart was indicted in the Eastern District of New York for attempting to receive child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(2) and for possessing child pornography in violation of §2252(a)(4)(b).3
Lockhart pleaded guilty to the possession offense, prompting the government to dismiss the receipt charge.4
Lockhart's presentence report calculated a guidelines range of 78 to 97 months for the possession offense but concluded that his prior New York conviction triggered the ten-year mandatory minimum under §2252(b)(2) because the conviction related to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward.5 Lockhart objected that the statutory phrase "involving a minor or ward" applied to all three listed crimes, so his adult-victim conviction fell outside the enhancement, yet the district court rejected the argument and imposed the mandatory minimum.6
The Second Circuit affirmed the sentence in 749 F. 3d 148 (CA2 2014).7 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over application of the limiting phrase.8
Whether the phrase "involving a minor or ward" in 18 U.S.C. §2252(b)(2) modifies all three listed predicate crimes or only the immediately preceding item "abusive sexual conduct"?9
The rule of the last antecedent provides that a limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows, and here the context of §2252(b)(2), including its parallel to Chapter 109A headings, reinforces that application rather than any series-qualifier principle.10
No. Under the rule of the last antecedent, the limiting phrase "involving a minor or ward" modifies only the immediately preceding term "abusive sexual conduct" in the list of state sexual-abuse predicates in §2252(b)(2).11 The statutory context, particularly the parallel structure with the headings in Chapter 109A of the Federal Criminal Code, confirms that Congress did not intend the modifier to reach the first two predicates.12 This reading avoids rendering the list redundant under the rule against superfluity while following the natural grammatical construction.13
The phrase "involving a minor or ward" modifies only "abusive sexual conduct," and Lockhart's prior conviction is encompassed by §2252(b)(2).14
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Breyer
Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, dissented on the ground that ordinary English usage and the series-qualifier principle require the modifier "involving a minor or ward" to apply to each term in the integrated list of parallel sex-crime predicates rather than only the final term.15 Legislative history from the 1996 Senate Report and the 1998 Department of Justice letter confirmed that Congress intended all three predicates to involve minors or wards.16 Any remaining doubt would be resolved by the rule of lenity in favor of the defendant.17