Leaving federal out caused so much aggravation. His reasoning that Congress couldn't possibly have meant what the petitioners have suggested is right on.

“A provision that may seem ambiguous in
isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory
scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings
produces a substantive effect that is compatible with
the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers
of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371
(1988).

New York State Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419–420
(1973) (“We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate
their own stated purposes.”).

--------------------------