From Word of the Day to the Supreme Court: the Superfluous Sentence Debate Explained

An insightful review of From Word of the Day to the Supreme Court: the Superfluous Sentence Debate Explained—read on to discover the essential highlights.

Everyday writing tolerates repetition. An email that reads, “We gathered together at 12:00 PM noon to discuss past history,” contains four distinct redundancies, but colleagues understand the message without incident. Legal drafting affords no such grace.

The core definition of superfluous describes anything transcending necessity. In casual speech, superfluous sentence examples usually look like harmless padding:

• “He entered inside the room to personally inspect the damage himself.”
• “The final outcome resulted in an unexpected surprise.”

Strike the redundant words and the factual architecture remains intact. In statutory text or judicial opinions, however, redundancy creates legal friction. Jurists do not treat words as passive background noise. When drafters include an unnecessary qualification, readers search for a hidden motive. If a city ordinance forbids citizens from "carrying firearms, knives, and metallic knuckles on Sundays," a citizen will inevitably argue that carrying brass knuckles on Tuesday is permitted. The superfluous specification of "Sundays" undermines the presumed universal safety goal of the statute.

This dynamic changes legal writing from an exercise in accumulation to a discipline of subtraction. Every additional adjective, explanatory clause, or parenthetical summary introduces an opportunity for opposing counsel to carve out an unintended exception.