https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-5279_09m1.pdf
This decision (issued by the Supreme Court yesterday) is likely to be of interest to criminal law, constitutional law, and legislation/statutory interpretation experts.
The defendant broke into a storage facility and burglarized ten different storage units inside. As a result, he has ten burglary convictions on his record. But did all this happen on one "occasion" or ten separate ones? If the latter, he gets a much longer sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act! All nine justices agree on ruling for the defendant, but have vastly different views on why.
Gorsuch (joined by Sotomayor) wants to use this occasion (pun intended) to strengthen the rule of lenity. Kavanaugh argues the Court should strengthen enforcement of mens rea requirements for criminal convictions instead. There is also a debate about whether the statutory purpose should influence courts' interpretation of the word "occasion," whether the views of Reagan's solicitor general back in 1987 deserve any deference, and how the ordinary meaning of "occasion" fits in here.
FWIW, I mostly agree with Gorsuch, here. But Kagan, in her majority opinion does make a decent case that the ordinary meaning of "occasion" resolves this issue. Of course, if it takes several pages of detailed legal analysis to explicate that ordinary meaning (even for a skilled and economical writer like Kagan), maybe it's not so ordinary after all!