I'm glad the truckers got their money, but I don't really see one interpretation as more or less accurate than the other. I've volunteered at Meals on Wheels b

I'm glad the truckers got their money, but I don't really see one interpretation as more or less accurate than the other. I've volunteered at Meals on Wheels before. What I'm usually told to do is unload shipments of donated food products (crate full of mangos, crate full of granola bars, crate full of apples, etc.) and pack them into shopping bags (e.g. 1 mango into each bag, one granola bar into each bag, two apples into each bag). The shopping bags are then be given out (distribution) or picked up by other volunteers who drive them to homes (shipping). So I think both "packing for shipping" and "packing for distribution" do seem like reasonably separate things and the law may have been wanting to list both so that someone packing for distribution wasn't excluded like could have happened if the law just said "packing for shipping". But if you take the law's meaning as targeting "packing for shipping" and "packing for distribution" then it no longer includes people who are just doing distribution and not packing (truckers). We know the law meant the last two things as separate anyway, though, because there's no "or" before "packing", so the end there was two separate items and not one last item. So "distribution" was meant to be a separate item and not part of "packing for". Which is the opposite argument that didn't hold up in court.