Right! I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see how can you interpret it the other way!

lower courts were sharply divided on the vital question of whether “and” bundles the conditions—as in, you don’t have (A), don’t have (B), and don’t have ©—which would mean a defendant who lacked any one of these conditions would be eligible for relief. The alternative reading, advocated by the Justice Department, holds that “and” really means “or”—that a defendant who met even one of the conditions would not be eligible for relief

The reporter seems to be getting this totally wrong. It’s like he is saying the exact opposite of what I understand. From my point of view:

If a defendant would be elegible for relief if he lacked any one of the conditions, that is actually interpreting that AND means OR.

If a defendant would be eligible for relief if he lacked all of the conditions, that is interpreting that AND means AND.