See also, e.g., Ball v. Chapman, 289 A.3d 1, 26-27 (Pa. 2023) (“the rule against superfluities . . . . instructs courts to construe a statute's language ‘so that effect is given to all its provisions, [and] so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant”) (quoting Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 314 (2009) (brackets in Ball); PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, 88 F.4th 250, 268 (3d Cir. 2023), amended sub nom. PJM Power Providers Grp. v. FERC, No. 21-3068, 2024 WL 259448 (3d Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (noting courts' responsibility to “avoid interpreting statutory provisions in ways that . . . leave entire operative clauses with no job to do”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. United States v. Hood, 343 U.S. 148, 151 (1952) (“[W]e should not read out what as a matter of ordinary English speech is in”).