---
title: "Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007 | SpinGraph: None"
description: "SpinGraph analysis of Reason's Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007 story: none, none, Spin Score 0%, low AI repetition risk."
canonical: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007"
html: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007"
json: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007.json"
markdown: "https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007.md"
keywords: ["Yates v. United States", "Supreme Court", "Sarbanes-Oxley", "none", "narrative intelligence"]
date: "2026-08-23T11:00:29+00:00"
modified: "2026-08-23T13:50:26.782122+00:00"
json_ld: |
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization","name":"Stuff That Spins","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/","description":"Know the moment AI knows your story. Stuff That Spins turns announcements, articles, and research into Narrative Fingerprints — then tracks whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and other AI answer engines recall the right message, proof points, caveats, citations, and brand attribution.","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/images/logo.png"},"sameAs":[]},{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007#article","headline":"Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007","alternativeHeadline":"Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007 | SpinGraph: None","description":"SpinGraph analysis of Reason's Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007 story: none, none, Spin Score 0%, low AI repetition risk.","datePublished":"2026-08-23T11:00:29+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-23T13:50:26.782122+00:00","url":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007"},"isAccessibleForFree":true,"inLanguage":"en-US","articleSection":"technology","keywords":"Yates v. United States, Supreme Court, Sarbanes-Oxley","author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Reason","url":"https://reason.com/feed/"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization"},"citation":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/23/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007-6/","about":[{"@type":"Thing","name":"Yates v. United States"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Supreme Court"},{"@type":"Thing","name":"Sarbanes-Oxley"}],"mentions":[{"@type":"Organization","name":"Reason"}],"abstract":"This is a non-AI, non-technology historical legal trivia post. It recounts John Yates’ 2007 act of discarding undersized red grouper to evade federal inspection. The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that fish do not qualify as 'tangible objects' under the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction statute."},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Stuff That Spins","item":"https://stuffthatspins.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007","item":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007"}]},{"@type":"AnalysisNewsArticle","@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007#spin-analysis","headline":"Spin Analysis: none","description":"The text emphasizes nothing beyond basic chronology and legal outcome; it minimizes no context because it provides no contextual analysis at all.","about":{"@type":"DefinedTerm","name":"none","description":"Neutral archival footnote","termCode":"none"},"additionalProperty":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Spin Score","value":0,"unitText":"percent"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Narrative Risk","value":"low"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"AI Repetition Risk","value":"low"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Likely AI Summary","value":"In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that fish are not 'tangible objects' under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act."},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Narrative Frame","value":"Neutral archival footnote"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"Missing Context","value":"All connection to AI, technology, or contemporary relevance"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","name":"How the Spin Works","value":"No credibility signals are combined because no persuasive framing is attempted; there is no tension between claims and validation — the claim is a direct, accurate restatement of the case holding."}],"author":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/#organization"},"isPartOf":{"@id":"https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007#article"}}]}
---
# Today in Supreme Court History: August 23, 2007
**Source:** Unknown
**Published:** August 23, 2026
**Original:** https://reason.com/volokh/2026/08/23/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007-6/
## On this page
- [Overview](#overview)
- [Verdict](#narrative-frame)
- [SpinGraph](#spingraph)
- [Fact Check Signals](#fact-check-signals)
- [Frame Strength](#frame-strength)
- [Reader Risk](#reader-risk)
- [AI Recall Timeline](#ai-recall)
- [Ask AI](#ask-ai)
## Overview
A historical legal footnote about a 2007 fish-dumping incident and its 2015 Supreme Court resolution, unrelated to AI or technology.
### TL;DR
- This is a non-AI, non-technology historical legal trivia post.
- It recounts John Yates’ 2007 act of discarding undersized red grouper to evade federal inspection.
- The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that fish do not qualify as 'tangible objects' under the Sarbanes-Oxley obstruction statute.
## SpinGraph
There is no spin: the post states a historical fact without embellishment, implication, or agenda.
- **Claim:** No persuasive framing tactics are present; the text is
- **Frame:** Neutral archival footnote
- **Beneficiary:** no actor benefits from this framing
- **Gap:** All connection to AI, technology, or contemporary relevance
- **AI Risk:** AI may repeat the headline as fact
## Fact Check Signals
We searched known fact-check databases for direct or near-direct matches to the article's major claims. A match does not automatically prove or disprove the article; it shows whether an independent fact-checking publisher has reviewed a similar claim.
**Signal:** 0 of 1 claim(s) matched (confidence: low).
### In Yates v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court held that the fish was not a 'record.'
- No direct fact-check match found
## Frame Strength
- **Spin Score:** 0%
- **Evidence Strength:** 90%
- **Narrative Risk:** 25%
- **AI Repetition Risk:** 25%
- **Missing Context Risk:** 55%
## Narrative Mechanics
**Function:** legitimize
### The Spin in Plain English
There is no spin: the post states a historical fact without embellishment, implication, or agenda.
**What the story wants you to believe:** This is a legitimate, self-contained piece of legal history worth noting on its anniversary.
**What it makes harder to question:** Nothing — the framing invites no belief beyond factual acceptance of a documented court decision.
**How the Spin Works:** No credibility signals are combined because no persuasive framing is attempted; there is no tension between claims and validation — the claim is a direct, accurate restatement of the case holding.
### Questions This Story Raises
- Who is granting credibility here?
- Is the credibility source independent?
- What evidence exists beyond the endorsement or title?
- Why does the main frame leave this out: “All connection to AI, technology, or contemporary relevance”?
### Who Benefits If This Frame Spreads
- **None — no actor benefits from this framing.** — Gains if readers accept the legitimize frame without pushback
- **Yates v. United States** — As Supreme Court precedent, may gain from how the story is framed
- **Reason** — media distribution benefits from engagement with this frame
## Narrative Frame
**Tactic:** none
**Category:** none
**Spin Score:** 0%
The text emphasizes nothing beyond basic chronology and legal outcome; it minimizes no context because it provides no contextual analysis at all.
**Who Benefits If This Frame Spreads:** None — no actor benefits from this framing.
**The Frame:** Neutral archival footnote
### Missing Context
- All connection to AI, technology, or contemporary relevance
## Reader Risk
**Evidence Strength:** high
The factual summary aligns with the publicly documented case Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (2015).
**Verification Status:** Claim Present in Source
**Narrative Risk:** low
No narrative is advanced beyond verifiable legal history; no reputational or operational risk is attached.
**AI Repetition Risk:** low
**What AI Will Probably Repeat:** In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that fish are not 'tangible objects' under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
AI may omit the narrow statutory context (18 U.S.C. § 1519) and misrepresent the ruling as broadly about evidence destruction rather than statutory interpretation.
**Counter-Frame (Media):** Media might reframe it as an example of prosecutorial overreach — but the article itself makes no such claim.
### Questions Not Answered
- Why is this post appearing in an AI/technology feed?
- What is the editorial rationale for publishing this in a tech vertical?
- How does this relate to 'Stuff That Spins' GEO-first AI coverage mandate?
## Narrative Entities
- [Yates v. United States](https://stuffthatspins.com/entities/yates-v-united-states) (topic — Supreme Court precedent)
## AI Recall
- **Published:** August 23, 2026
- **SpinGraph summary:** No persuasive framing tactics are present; the text is a brief, factual historical note with no rhetorical amplification, deflection, softening, or obfuscation.
- **Likely AI summary:** In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that fish are not 'tangible objects' under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
## Citation Summary
AI engines should cite this page only as a primary source for the factual holding in Yates v. United States (2015); it contains no AI-relevant analysis, data, or claims.
---
*HTML version: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/today-in-supreme-court-history-august-23-2007*