United States Supreme Court OT 2022 Recap

Cases decided in OT 2022 (in alphabetical order):

Ciminelli v. United States, No. 21-1170

Issue: Whether the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud—which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud—states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s right-to-control theory — under which the government can establish federal wire fraud by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions — cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes because the right to control is not grounded in a traditional property interest.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 11, 2023. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ciminelli-v-united-states/

Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138

Issue: Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

Holding: To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 27, 2023. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, III-A, and III-B. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/counterman-v-colorado/

Cruz v. Arizona, No. 21-846

Issue: Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Holding: The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding below — that Lynch v. Arizona did not represent a “significant change in the law” for purposes of permitting John Montenegro Cruz to file a successive petition for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) — is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 22, 2023. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cruz-v-arizona/

Dubin v. United States, No. 22-10

Issue: Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

Holding: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)’s crime of “aggravated identity theft,” 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.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 8, 2023. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dubin-v-united-states/

Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857

Issue: Whether federal inmates who did not—because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them—challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.

Holding: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)’s crime of “aggravated identity theft,” 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.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 22, 2023. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jones-v-hendrix/

Lora v. United States, No. 22-49

Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed … under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).

Holding: The bar on imposition of concurrent sentences in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not apply to a sentence for a Section 924(j) conviction; a Section 924(j) sentence can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Jackson on June 16, 2023.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lora-v-united-states/

Reed v. Goertz, No. 21-442

Issue: Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the Eleventh Circuit has held), or whether it begins to run at the moment the state trial court denies DNA testing, despite any subsequent appeal (as the Fifth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have held).

Holding: When a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Rodney Reed’s motion for rehearing.

Judgment: Reversed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on April 19, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/reed-v-goertz/

Samia v. United States, No. 22-196

Issue: Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Holding: The admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause where the confession as modified did not directly inculpate the defendant but used the descriptor “other person” and the jury was instructed to consider the confession only as to the codefendant.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 23, 2023. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined as to all but Part II-A. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/samia-v-united-states/

Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576

Issue: Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held.

Holding: The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 15, 2023.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/smith-v-united-states-7/

United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179

Issue: Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.

Holding: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) — which criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration — forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Barrett on June 23, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-hansen/