Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Samia, Hunter, and Stillwell were tried jointly for the murder-for-hire of Lee, a real estate broker. The prosecution argued that Hunter had hired Samia and Stillwell to pose as buyers and visit properties with Lee. The court admitted Stillwell’s confession that he was in the van in which Lee was killed, but he claimed that Samia had shot Lee. Since Stillwell would not be testifying and the full confession implicated Samia, the prosecution introduced the testimony of a DEA agent, who described Stillwell’s confession in a way that eliminated Samia’s name while avoiding obvious indications of redaction. Before that testimony and again before deliberations, the court instructed the jury that the testimony about Stillwell’s confession was admissible only as to Stillwell and should not be considered as to Samia or Hunter. All three were convicted. The Second Circuit held that the admission of Stillwell’s confession did not violate Samia’s Confrontation Clause rights.The Supreme Court affirmed. The Confrontation Clause was not violated by the admission of a non-testifying codefendant’s confession that did not directly inculpate the defendant and was subject to a proper limiting instruction. The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause forbids the introduction of out-of-court “testimonial” statements unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had the chance to cross-examine the witness previously but applies only to witnesses “against the accused.” Ordinarily, a witness at a joint trial is not considered a witness ‘against’ a defendant if the jury is instructed to consider that testimony only against a codefendant. This rule is consistent with the Clause’s text, historical practice, and the law’s reliance on limiting instructions in other contexts. To mandate severance whenever the prosecution wishes to introduce the confession of a non-testifying codefendant in a joint trial would be “too high” a price to pay. View "Samia v. United States" on Justia Law

Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U.S. citizenship through “adult adoption,” earning nearly $2 million from his fraudulent scheme. The government charged Hansen under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which forbids “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such [activity] is or will be in violation of law.” The Ninth Circuit found Clause (iv) unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.The Supreme Court reversed. Because 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. A statute is facially invalid under the overbreadth doctrine if it “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.” Here, Congress used “encourage” and “induce” as terms of art referring to criminal solicitation and facilitation (capturing only a narrow band of speech) not as those terms are used in ordinary conversation. Criminal solicitation is the intentional encouragement of an unlawful act, and facilitation—i.e., aiding and abetting—is the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further an offense’s commission. Neither requires lending physical aid; both require an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act. The context of these words and statutory history indicate that Congress intended to refer to their well-established legal meanings. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) reaches no further than the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and does not “prohibi[t] a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.” View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

In 2000, Jones was convicted on two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed Jones’ convictions and sentence. Jones’ subsequent 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion resulted in the vacatur of one of his concurrent sentences. Years later, the Supreme Court held (Rehaif) that a defendant’s knowledge of the status that disqualifies him from owning a firearm is an element of a 922(g) conviction, abrogating contrary Eighth Circuit precedent. Jones filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 motion in the district of his imprisonment.The Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) restrictions on second or successive 2255 motions by filing a 2241 habeas petition.Under section 2255, federal prisoners can collaterally attack their sentences in the sentencing court, rather than by a 2241 habeas corpus petition in the district of confinement. The purpose of 2255 was to address problems created by district courts collaterally reviewing one another’s proceedings and by the concentration of federal prisoners in certain districts. Congress generally barred federal prisoners “authorized” to file a 2255 motion from filing a 2241 petition but preserved access to 2241 in cases where “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality" of the detention (Saving Clause). AEDPA subsequently barred second or successive 2255 motions unless based on either newly discovered evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law.” The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy section 2255(h) does not mean that the prisoner may bring a 2241 petition. Section 2255 is not necessarily “inadequate or ineffective” if the 2255 court fails to apply the correct substantive law. The Saving Clause is concerned with the adequacy or effectiveness of the remedial vehicle, not asserted errors of law. Due process does not guarantee the opportunity to have legal issues redetermined in successive collateral attacks. AEDPA embodies a balance between finality and error correction; there is nothing incongruous about a system in which the application of a since-rejected statutory interpretation cannot be remedied after final judgment. View "Jones v. Hendrix" on Justia Law

Smagin won a multimillion-dollar arbitration award against Yegiazaryan stemming from the misappropriation of funds in Moscow. Because Yegiazaryan lives in California, Smagin, who lives in Russia, filed suit to enforce the award in California under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The district court froze Yegiazaryan’s California assets before entering judgment. While the action was ongoing, Yegiazaryan himself obtained an unrelated multimillion-dollar arbitration award and sought to avoid the asset freeze by concealing the funds.Smagin filed a civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), alleging Yegiazaryan and others worked together to frustrate Smagin’s collection on the judgment through a pattern of RICO predicate racketeering acts, including wire fraud, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that Smagin failed to plead a “domestic injury.”The Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court disagreed. The “domestic-injury” requirement for private civil RICO suits is context-specific and turns largely on the facts alleged; it does not mean that foreign plaintiffs may not sue under RICO. The circumstances surrounding Smagin’s injury indicate that the injury arose in the United States. Smagin’s alleged injury is his inability to collect his judgment. Much of the alleged racketeering activity that caused that injury occurred in the United States. While some of Yegiazaryan’s actions to avoid collection occurred abroad, the scheme was directed toward frustrating the California judgment. The injurious effects of the racketeering activity largely manifested in California and undercut the orders of the California court. The Court rejected arguments that fraud is typically deemed felt at the plaintiff’s residence and that intangible property is generally located at the owner’s domicile as not necessarily supporting the presumption against extraterritoriality, with its distinctive concerns for comity and discerning congressional meaning. View "Yegiazaryan v. Smagin" on Justia Law

Two noncitizens were determined removable because they had convictions for aggravated felonies, offenses “relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Ninth Circuit concluded that Cordero-Garcia’s state conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime did not constitute an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” because the state offense did not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Pugin’s state conviction for accessory after the fact constituted an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” even if the state offense did not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.The Supreme Court held that an offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under section 1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. The definition of “aggravated felony,” for purposes of removal, was expanded in 1996 to include offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” Obstruction of justice is often “most effective” when it prevents an investigation or proceeding from commencing. The phrase “relating to” indicates that the statute covers offenses having a connection with obstruction of justice—which surely covers common obstruction offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending. Even if a specific prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) requires that an investigation or proceeding be pending, Congress defined offenses under 1101(a)(43)(S) more broadly. View "Pugin v. Garland" on Justia Law

A federal court imposing multiple prison sentences typically has discretion to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively, 18 U.S.C. 3584. Section 924(c)'s exception provides: no term of imprisonment imposed “under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.” Lora was convicted of aiding and abetting a violation of section 924(j)(1), which penalizes “a person who, in the course of a violation of subsection (c), causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm,” where “the killing is a murder.” A violation of subsection (c) occurs when a person “uses or carries a firearm” “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” or “possesses a firearm” “in furtherance of any such crime.” Lora was also convicted of conspiring to distribute drugs. The district court concluded that it lacked discretion to run the sentences for Lora’s two convictions concurrently. The Second Circuit affirmed.A unanimous Supreme Court vacated. Section 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not govern a 924(j) sentence, which can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence. Subsection (c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies only to the terms of imprisonment prescribed within subsection (c). A sentence imposed under subsection (j) does not qualify. Subsection (j) is located outside subsection (c) and does not call for imposing any sentence from subsection (c); while subsection (j) references subsection (c), that reference is limited to offense elements, not penalties. It is not “implausible” for Congress to have imposed the harsh consecutive-sentence mandate under subsection (c) but not subsection (j). That result is consistent with the statute’s design. Unlike subsection (c), subsection (j) generally eschews mandatory penalties in favor of sentencing flexibility. View "Lora v. United States" on Justia Law

Smith was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for theft of trade secrets from StrikeLines’ website. Smith moved to dismiss the indictment, citing the Constitution’s Venue Clause and the Vicinage Clause. Smith argued that he had accessed the website from his Alabama home and that the servers storing StrikeLines’ data were in Orlando, Florida. The Eleventh Circuit determined that venue was improper and vacated Smith’s conviction, but held that a trial in an improper venue did not bar reprosecution.The Supreme Court affirmed. The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Except as prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause, when a defendant obtains a reversal of a prior, unsatisfied conviction, he may be retried. Nothing in the Venue Clause suggests that a new trial in the proper venue is not an adequate remedy for its violation. The Vicinage Clause—which guarantees the right to “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” concerns jury composition, not the place where a trial may be held, and concerns the district where the crime was committed, rather than the state. The vicinage right is one aspect of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial rights and retrials are the appropriate remedy for violations of other jury-trial rights.The Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated by retrial in a proper venue. A judicial decision on venue is fundamentally different from a jury’s verdict of acquittal. Culpability is the touchstone; when a trial terminates with a finding that the defendant’s criminal culpability had not been established, retrial is prohibited. Retrial is permissible when a trial terminates on a basis unrelated to factual guilt. The reversal of a conviction based on a violation of the Venue or Vicinage Clauses, even when called a “judgment of acquittal,” does not resolve the question of criminal culpability. View "Smith v. United States" on Justia Law

Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347 after he overbilled Medicaid for psychological testing performed by his company. The prosecution argued that, in defrauding Medicaid, he also committed “[a]ggravated identity theft” under section 1028A(a)(1), which applies when a defendant, “during and in relation to any [predicate offense, such as healthcare fraud], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” Dubin’s fraudulent Medicaid billing included the patient’s Medicaid reimbursement number. The Fifth Circuit affirmed Dubin’s aggravated identity theft conviction.The Supreme Court vacated. Under section 1028A(a)(1), a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. Under the government’s view, section 1028A(a)(1) would apply automatically any time a name or other means of identification happens to be part of the payment or billing used in the commission of a long list of predicate offenses. The Court concluded that the use of a means of identification must entail using a means of identification specifically in a fraudulent or deceitful manner, not as a mere ancillary feature of a payment or billing method. The inclusion of “aggravated” in 1028A’s title suggests that Congress contemplated a particularly serious form of identity theft, not ordinary overbilling offenses. View "Dubin v. United States" on Justia Law

Then-New York Governor Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative administered through Fort Schuyler Management Corporation, a nonprofit affiliated with SUNY, aimed to invest $1 billion in upstate development projects. Investigations later uncovered a scheme that involved Cuomo’s associates--a member of Fort Schuyler’s board of directors and a construction company made payments to a lobbyist with ties to the Cuomo administration. Fort Schuyler’s bid process subsequently allowed the construction company to receive major Buffalo Billion contracts.The participants were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. Under the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory, wire fraud can be established by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions. The jury instructions defined “property” as including “intangible interests such as the right to control the use of one’s assets,” and “economically valuable information” as “information that affects the victim’s assessment of the benefits or burdens of a transaction, or relates to the quality of goods or services received or the economic risks.” The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.The Supreme Court reversed. Under Supreme Court precedents the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. The prosecution must prove that wire fraud defendants “engaged in deception,” and also that money or property was “an object of their fraud.” The "fraud statutes do not vest a general power in the federal government to enforce its view of integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking.” The right-to-control theory applies to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions traditionally left to state contract and tort law. The Court declined to affirm Ciminelli’s convictions on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to establish wire fraud under a traditional property-fraud theory. View "Ciminelli v. United States" on Justia Law

Percoco served as the Executive Deputy Secretary to New York Governor Cuomo from 2011-2016. During an eight-month hiatus in 2014, Percoco resigned from government service to manage the Governor’s reelection campaign; he accepted payments totaling $35,000 to assist a real-estate development company in dealings with Empire State Development, a state agency. Percoco urged a senior ESD official to drop a requirement of an agreement with local unions as a precondition to receiving state funding. ESD informed the company the following day that the agreement was not necessary.Percoco was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346. The court instructed the jury that Percoco could be found to have had a duty to provide honest services to the public during the time when he was not serving as a public official if the jury concluded that “he dominated and controlled any governmental business” and that “people working in the government actually relied on him because of a special relationship he had with the government.” The Second Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court reversed, finding the jury instruction erroneous. The instructions did not define “the intangible right of honest services” with sufficient definiteness. The Court cited its 2010 “Skilling” rejection of the prosecution’s argument that section 1346 should apply to cases involving undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee, While a person nominally outside public employment could have the necessary fiduciary duty to the public “the intangible duty of honest services” does not extend a duty to the public to all private persons. View "Percoco v. United States" on Justia Law