Our study suggests a different lesson of Nix: Law reflects a mixture of ordinary and technical terms, and statutes regularly speak to multiple lay and expert audiences.

Nix is cited for "ordinary" and context-sensitive meaning. But sometimes the right context-sensitive meaning is a technical one!

Today Supreme Court Justices invoke Nix to support "ordinary" meaning in legal interpretation.

They cite Nix as the remedy to "literalism" in interpretation: Interpretation should be context-sensitive and ordinary.

Moving into the 20th century, trade usages of "tomato" also became more ambiguous.

As we became more familiar with tomatoes, it was less common for texts to label them explicitly as "fruits" or "vegetables"

Drilling down further, even "trade" usage varies. When comparing texts for (i) scientific, (ii), agricultural, and (iii) commercial audiences, there were more "vegetable" uses of "tomato" in the last.

A sample of ordinary language supports the Court: tomato was used largely as a vegetable.

But in a sample of language from specialized trade contexts, "tomato" was used often as a fruit and vegetable.

The Court held that a tomato is a vegetable (in the 1883 Tariff Act), elevating ordinary over scientific meaning.

But it hinted that it would follow a trade meaning – if one existed. We studied 19th century trade texts, which suggest a new lesson of Nix...