This thesis argues for the utility of syntactic cartography in representing and analyzing the disputed language of legal statutes. It presents an analysis of two appellate court cases, Flores-Figueroa v. United States (2009) and In re Sanders (2008). Each case involves a difference of opinion with respect to the position and function of prepositions found in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f), respectively. Informing the tree structures are Merlo and Ferrer's (2006) six diagnostics for PP attachment: head dependence, optionality, iterativity, ordering, copular paraphrase, and deverbal nouns. In Flores-Figueroa, the analysis yields a conclusion that affirms the court's decision, as does the analysis in Sanders, although it only concurs in part. Implications of the study and the overall cartography approach are discussed, including how it could impact the drafting of jury instructions and future legislation. The paper also addresses the unique heritage of legal language, the ways in which it contrasts with civic, non-legal English, and how its characteristics give rise to ambiguity and vagueness, two suitable phenomena for linguistic analysis. Further, it discusses the potential for providing linguistic input on active cases to the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies.