Tag Archives: supreme court

Government Fraud Theories Take It On The Chin – Update for May 15, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT NIXES FEDERAL POLITICAL FRAUD CASES

Fraud170406Nobody likes fraud. Prior to the 1987 decision in McNally v. United States, everyone agreed that federal wire fraud and mail fraud statutes prohibited all kinds of it, including any number of intangible frauds that the Government argued were crimes even if the object of the fraud was not to deprive the government or taxpayers of money.

Honest Services Fraud:  “Honest-services” fraud is fascinating stuff. Most cases prosecuted under federal mail fraud and wire fraud statutes for honest-services fraud involve public employees accepting a bribe or kickback that did not necessarily result in a financial loss for the government or taxpayer but did deprive the government of the right to receive the “honest services” of a government official or employee. In some cases, courts have ruled that the employee did not even have to hold a public position. 

The whole idea of “honest services fraud” that didn’t cost the public a dime was rejected in McNally. But Congress quickly plugged the hole with 18 USC § 1346, which defined mail and wire fraud as “include[ing] a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Decades later in Skilling v US, fallout from the Enron scandal, the Supreme Court clarified that “the intangible right of honest services” in § 1346 relates to “fraudulent schemes to deprive another of honest services through bribes or kickbacks supplied by a third party who had not been deceived.” 

money170419Joe Percoco had managed former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s re-election campaign, but he was a private citizen (about to return to the governor’s office) when he called the head of a state development agency and urged him to let a real estate development go forward without the developer having to buy a “labor peace” agreement with the local unions. A day after Joe made the call, state officials reversed their decision that the developer needed to such an agreement, saving  the developer a lot more money than the $30,000 he had paid Joe. 

Joe was convicted of fraud for taking money in exchange for helping to facilitate the real estate construction project. The fraud was “depriving members of the public of the intangible right to ‘honest services’.”

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court threw out Joe’s conviction, holding that the jury instructions used to convict him were too vague. 

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a person nominally outside public employment could never have a fiduciary duty to the public to provide honest services, but it held that a jury instruction that Joe had such a duty ‘if he dominated and controlled any governmental business and people working in the government actually relied on him because of his special relationship with the government” were too vague. The justices said the instruction did not define “’the intangible right of honest services’ with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people could understand what conduct was prohibited.”

moneyhum170419The Court held that by “rejecting the Government’s argument that § 1346 should apply to cases involving ‘undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee,’ the Skilling Court made clear that “the intangible right of honest services” must be defined with the clarity typical of criminal statutes and should not be held to reach an ill-defined category of circumstances simply because of a few pre-McNally decisions. The fact that Joe was influential was simply not enough to put him on notice that being hired to make a persuasive phone call was a federal crime.

Right to Control:   In the other Supreme Court criminal-law decision last week, Louis Ciminelli had steered the terms of a $750 million development project so that his company’s bid would be successful. The government could not prove that the state lost a dime over what other contractors would have bid but argued Lou had deprived the state of its “right to control” the bid process.

The Supreme Court rejected any notion that any “right to control” theory resided in the wire fraud statute. The Court expressed federalism and overcriminalization concerns in narrowing the scope of § 1343, holding that “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. Instead, these statutes protect property rights only. Accordingly, the Government must prove not only that wire fraud defendants engaged in deception, but also that money or property was an object of their fraud.”

Percoco v. United States, Case No 21-1158, 2023 US LEXIS 1889 (May 11, 2023)

Ciminelli v. United States, Case No 21-1170, 2023 US LEXIS 1888 (May 11, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Skeptical About Identity Theft Policy – Update for March 6, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT HAS ROUGH RIDE AT SCOTUS

identitytheft230306The government’s habit of using the two-year mandatory consecutive minimum sentence for aggravated identity theft provided by 18 USC § 1028A as a cudgel against simple fraud took its own beating during last week’s Supreme Court oral argument.

The case concerned David Dubin, who was convicted of healthcare fraud. Dubin was accused of bilking Medicaid by misrepresenting who had conducted medical testing and rounding up the time spent carrying out each test from 2.5 to 3 hours, so that a bill submitted for services to Peter Patient was higher than it should have been.

Dubin’s sentence included a two-year mandatory minimum term for “aggravated identity theft” because the Medicaid submission included the identity of the patient but misrepresented the particulars of the test. As The New York Times put it and countless federal defendants who have been clobbered by § 1028A’s extra two-year consecutive sentence, the statute “does not seem to require identity theft in the ordinary understanding of that phrase.”

Dubin’s lawyer argued that his client had not used a patient’s identity in any meaningful way: “It has to be a lie about who receives services or who obtains services,” he said, “not a lie about how those services were rendered.”

The Supreme Court was generally sympathetic. Justice Neil Gorsuch  said, “If the government’s theory is correct and every time I order salmon at a restaurant I’m told it’s fresh, but it’s frozen, and my credit card is run for fresh salmon, that’s identity theft.” The government’s position in the case, Gorsuch suggested, would transform everyday fraud into identity theft “whether it’s in a restaurant billing scenario, a health care billing scenario, or lawyers who round their hours up.”

Justice Ketanji Jackson appeared to agree. “It’s like every fraud in the world,” she told the government’s lawyer, “And you just admitted in response to Justice Thomas that it could be a teeny, teeny fraud.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said “the vagueness” of the statute—a due process issue—”is a problem.” She noted that it is hard to nail down the government’s definition of the crime “because every time you point to something that seems absurd, they come up with a limiting rule.” She complained that “the issue of vagueness permeates this statute,” and mentioned the rule of lenity, which favors a narrow reading of ambiguous criminal laws.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked the government where its position that any fraud, no matter how small, “stand[s] in terms of vagueness, notice to the world, fair notice to the world? I’m not sure most waiters in America appreciate that they’re committing identity theft when they bill for that bottle of wine.”

identitytheft1028A230306Dubin’s lawyer said said § 1028A’s mandatory minimum sentence was “a very strong cudgel to use against people to procure pleas in very low-level fraud cases. And that’s not what Congress [] aimed for in this case. Congress wasn’t trying to create a two-year mandatory minimum all of a sudden for ordinary fraud offenses. It was aimed at a particular new form of misconduct that’s simply not present in the words ‘aggravated identity theft.’”

Dubin v. United States, Case No. 22-10 (Oral argument, Feb 27, 2023)

The New York Times, Supreme Court Seems Skeptical of Broad Sweep of Identity Theft Law (February 27, 2023)

Reason, SCOTUS Questions the Government’s Absurdly Broad Definition of ‘Aggravated Identity Theft’ (March 2, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Will SCOTUS Grant Review to Acquitted Conduct Today? – Update for January 23, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

ACQUITTED CONDUCT STILL HANGING FIRE

Three weeks ago, I wrote that the Supreme Court would be deciding whether to finally take the question of whether a district court should be able to factor conduct for which a defendant was acquitted into a sentence, sort of “the jury didn’t think you did it, but I know better” approach to sentencing.

relist230123It turns out that SCOTUS now has five petitions for review before it raising the acquitted conduct issue. The principal case, McClinton v. United States, was “relisted” at the Justices’ Friday, January 6, 2023, conference for the following week’s Friday conference. On January 13, the Justices relisted the issue again for the January 20, 2023, conference. The Court will announce actions taken at the January 20th conference this morning at 9:30 Eastern time.

A “relist” occurs when the justices neither accept nor deny a petition for certiorari, but instead defer it for the next conference.

SCOTUSBlog explains that

it is almost impossible to know exactly what is happening when a particular case is relisted… One justice could be trying to pick up a fourth vote to grant review, one or more justices may want to look more closely at the case, a justice could be writing an opinion about the court’s decision to deny review, or the court could be writing an opinion to summarily reverse… the decision below.

Generally, the Supreme Court does not accept a case for review until it has been “relisted” one or more times.

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week, “More often than not, relisting is a precursor to a later denial of cert, perhaps with a dissent or separate statement being authored by one or more Justices giving their take on the Court’s decision not to grant review. But relisting is also sometimes a precursor to a later granting of cert. So, as I have said before, I am hopeful, though still more than a bit pessimistic, about the possibility of 2023 being the year for SCOTUS to take up acquitted conduct sentencing.”

SCOTUSBlog, Acquitted-conduct sentencing and “offended observer” standing (January 19, 2023)

McClinton v. United States, Case No. 21-1557 (petition for certiorari pending)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Supreme Court relists latest cases seeking review of acquitted conduct sentencing (January 17, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Nine Justices Get Back to Work – Update for September 27, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SCOTUS ‘ENDLESS SUMMER’ ENDS

The Supreme Court brings its three-month recess to an end tomorrow, when the Justices will hold the Court’s annual “long conference.”

vacationSCOTUS180924Throughout the year, the Justices meet on a nearly weekly basis to consider pending petitions for certiorari. But that practice ends in late June when the Court breaks for the summer. Then, petitions pile up over the summer.

At the annual “long conference,” held the week before the Court begins its next term, the Justices will typically dispose of about 2,000 pending petitions. A research paper published seven years ago in the Law and Society Review found that the petitions arriving over the summer had a 16% worse chance of being accepted by the Court.

Gregory Garre, Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration, told The New York Times, “Given the numbers, as counsel, you really have to try your best to avoid the summer list, though sometimes it is unavoidable,” Garre said. “Fortunately, as tough as the odds are, the cream can still rise to the top.”

The Court convenes to begin October Term 2022 (the name of the nine-month term ending June 30, 2023) next Monday.

49 Law and Society Review, Seasonal Affective Disorder: Clerk Training and the Success of Supreme Court Certiorari Petitions (August 27, 2015)

New York Times, Supreme Court’s End-of-Summer Conference: Where Appeals ‘Go to Die’ (August 31, 2015)

– Thomas L. Root

Butterfly Wings Don’t Beat For Innocence – Update for July 7, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

THE BEIJING BUTTERFLY

butterfly220707When mathematician Edward Lorenz first posited the notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Beijing today could affect the path of a tornado in Kansas three weeks hence, his fanciful illustration became the interface with chaos theory that the average Joe and Jane could understand. Essentially, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

When a federal defendant is presented with a plea agreement and told by her lawyer that it’s the best deal she can hope for, the fine print is rarely explained. That includes Section 10(b)(1)(A)(iii) on page 12 which says something like “Defendant waives the right to challenge the conviction or sentence under 18 USC § 3742 or on any collateral attack under 28 USC § 2255 or other section, except in cases of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

pleawaiver220707And why not sign it? The defendant is under plenty of stress as she contemplates agreeing to spending a decade in prison, and a lot of that gibberish in the back of the plea agreement means a lot less to her than her attorney’s blandishments that the judge certainly won’t give her more than 48 months.

In chaos theory parlance, the appeal/collateral attack waiver is a pretty small input. Only later does the output become huge.

The Supreme Court left for vacation in time for the 4th of July. Like a fireworks display, the finale was stellar and stunning: abortion, guns, prayer, and the biggest case of all, a decision that may spell doom for the administrative state. But just like many fireworks finales, after the final glowing detonation fades, one straggler rocket goes airborne, with no light but a surprise reverberating boom.

Last Thursday, the Court released its final list of certiorari grants and denials for the term, announcing the one or two cases it will add to next term’s docket while denying a long list of petitions. One of the denials was a guy named Zenon Grzegorczyk (pronounced just the way it sounds). Zenon, a good father, wanted to murder six people whom he blamed for his divorce and for the loss of custody of his child. He hired and paid hitmen to pull it off.

hitman220707Problem was that Zenon, not being an avid news consumer, was unaware that all hitmen available for hire are undercover law enforcement officers, moonlighting for some pocket money. Thus it was in this case. Zenon was promptly charged with murder for hire (18 USC § 1958) and an 18 USC § 924(c) count for using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence.

Zenon signed a plea agreement in which, among other things, he waived any right to challenge his murder-for-hire and firearms convictions. He was sentenced to about 18 years.

A couple of years later, after the Supreme Court decided in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya that crimes of violence had to be accompanied by use or threat of force, Zenon filed a § 2255 motion challenging the firearms conviction. Because of his plea agreement, the District Court denied the motion, and the 7th Circuit affirmed. Zenon filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Davis that a conspiracy to commit a violent crime was not itself a violent offense that could support an 18 USC § 924(c) conviction. The government flipped its position, asking the Supreme Court to vacate the 7th Circuit’s judgment because Davis made Zenon actually innocent of the 18 USC § 924(c) conviction. The mechanism is called a “GVR,” because the Supremes grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the lower court’s decision, and remand the case for further consideration, all in one order.

judgeB160229The Supreme Court refused, denying the petition last week. Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence to the denial that “[b]ecause the 7th Circuit correctly concluded that the defendant’s unconditional guilty plea precluded any argument based on the new caselaw, this Court has no appropriate legal basis to vacate the Seventh Circuit’s judgment.”

What is notable was the spirited dissent written by Justice Sotomayor. She argued that Zenon’s case

falls comfortably within this Court’s longstanding GVR practice… The Solicitor General’s considered concession that 18 USC § 1958(a) is not a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A) is an intervening development that has triggered the Government’s agreement to forgo assertion of the procedural bar that proved decisive below. Consequently, there is surely a reasonable probability of a different result on remand: With the Government waiving the procedural bar, Grzegorczyk’s § 924(c) conviction and 5-year sentence should be vacated, and his § 1958(a) sentence reduced by at least 2 years and 7 months. Moreover, given the stakes for Grzegorczyk, as well as the Government’s express consent, this is a case where the marginal cost to judicial efficiency and finality from a remand should yield to solicitude for Grzegorczyk’s rights. “Further proceedings” are therefore “just under the circumstances,” 28 USC § 2106, and the Court should issue a GVR order.

“By denying certiorari rather than issuing a GVR order,” Justice Sotomayor fumed, “the Court allocates the full cost of the Government’s error to Grzegorczyk, who faces over 7½ extra years of incarceration as a result.”

innocent210504What this means, of course, is that actual innocence of a count of conviction will always yield to an oppressive appeal waiver signed in haste by a defendant who is understandably focused on the larger issues in her plea agreement rather than flitting butterfly of a provision, whose wingbeats seem inconsequential at the time but may later spawn a tornado of injustice.

In his concurrence, Kavanaugh suggested that if the government really felt that Zenon was entitled to relief from the five -year 924(c) sentence, “the Attorney General may recommend a pardon or commutation to the President, and the President may pardon the defendant or commute the sentence.”

Like that’s gonna happen…

Grzegorczyk v. United States, Case No. 21-5967, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3273 (June 30, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Concepcion’s Concept: Discretion on Resentencing is Presumed – Update for June 29, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

DOES CONCEPCION HOLD LESSONS FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE?

The Supreme Court ruled on the final two criminal cases of the term on Monday (although there are six more October Term 2021 cases yet to be decided before the end of the week).

crack-coke200804Back in 2009, Carlos Concepcion pled guilty to distributing at least five grams of crack cocaine, and was sentenced to 228 months in prison. The following year, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which brought crack sentences more in line with powder cocaine sentences, down from a 100:1 ratio to an 18:1 ratio.

But the Fair Sentencing Act was not retroactive, so people sentenced before it was passed – like Carlos – could not benefit from it. Only when the First Step Act (FSA) passed in 2018 were the benefits of the Fair Sentencing Act extended to the Carlos Concepcions of the world.

Under FSA § 404, Carlos was entitled to apply to his sentencing court for resentencing at a lower level. Like most inmates – whose resources are only sufficient to pay for some telephone calls home and a few items in the commissary – Carlos could not afford a lawyer, so he filed pro se.

careeroffender22062Complicating Carlos’s case was the fact that under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, he was deemed to be a career offender. Career offender status, a label that is easily applied to people who have hardly spent their lives as a criminal, sends a defendant’s minimum sentencing range guideline into low earth orbit. Carlos’s range was no exception. Under the statute, Carlos faced a minimum 5-year sentence, but his advisory sentencing range as a Guidelines career offender started at 17½ years.

The government argued that Carlos’s Guidelines sentencing range did not change despite the fact that the Fair Sentencing Act lowered his minimum sentence to zero, because the career offender guidelines were not based on drug amount or statutory minimum sentences. Carlos responded that he should no longer be considered a career offender because one of his prior convictions was vacated and his prison record showed evidence of rehabilitation through his participation in drug and vocational programs, spiritual growth, and a solid reentry plan.

Carlos’s sentencing judge sided with the government, holding that because Carlos’s sentencing range remained the same, Carlos could not rely on the Fair Sentencing Act for a lower sentence.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Carlos. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a 5-4 majority, said that “Federal courts historically have exercised… broad discretion to consider all relevant information at an initial sentencing hearing, consistent with their responsibility to sentence the whole person before them. That discretion also carries forward to later proceedings that may modify an original sentence. Such discretion is bounded only when Congress or the Constitution expressly limits the type of information a district court may consider in modifying a sentence.”

discretion220629Congress did nothing in the First Step Act to “contravene this well-established sentencing practice,” Sotomayor said. “Nothing in the text and structure of the First Step Act expressly, or even implicitly, overcomes the established tradition of district courts’ sentencing discretion.”

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, argues that the Concepcion ruling has an impact well outside the seemingly limited FSA Sec. 404 resentencing. “Specifically,” he wrote, “I think the decision resolves not only the circuit split surrounding crack resentencing cases, but also the circuit split surrounding what factors can serve as the basis for compassionate release after the FIRST STEP Act.

Berman noted:

There is a deep circuit split about whether non-retroactive changes in sentencing law may constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release. Ever the textualist, I have argued that non-retroactive changes in sentencing law can provide the basis for compassion release because nothing in the text of § 3582(c)(1)(a) supports the contention that non-retroactive changes cannot ever constitute ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons” to allow a sentence reduction, either alone or in combination with other factors. But I believe the Third, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have all formally held otherwise. And yet, this language from the Supreme Court’s opinion in Concepcion would seem to undercut any court efforts to invent extra-textual limits on sentencing or resentencing considerations:

It is only when Congress or the Constitution limits the scope of information that a district court may consider in deciding whether, and to what extent, to modify a sentence, that a district court’s discretion to consider information is restrained…

The only limitations on a court’s discretion to consider any relevant materials at an initial sentencing or in modifying that sentence are those set forth by Congress in a statute or by the Constitution….

Moreover, when raised by the parties, district courts have considered nonretroactive Guidelines amendments to help inform whether to reduce sentences at all, and if so, by how much…. Nothing express or implicit in the First Step Act suggests that these courts misinterpreted the Act in considering such relevant and probative information.

Berman argues that the Supreme Court’s language about a sentencing judge’s broad discretion “when considering a sentence modification is directly relevant to federal judges’ consideration of so-called compassionate release motions.”

compassion160124There is nothing in 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (the statute on sentence reductions, generally if inaccurately known as “compassionate releases”) that in any way limits a judge in what he or she may consider in fashioning a lower sentence, or for that matter, in deciding whether to impose a lower sentence at all. That should be game, set and match for the issue of the limits of a court’s discretion on deciding a compassionate release motion.

One interesting twist: the Sentencing Commission will soon be reconstituted, and it seems clear that the new commissioners consider rewriting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 – the Guidelines policy statement on compassionate releases – as job one. If a rewritten § 1B1.13 limits a sentencing court’s discretion in granting or denying a compassionate release motion, would such a limitation be one “set forth by Congress in a statute or by the Constitution?” Sentencing Guidelines must be submitted to Congress, but go into effect unless the Senate otherwise directs. And the compassionate release statute requires a sentencing judge to ensure that any sentence reduction “is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”

But that’s a question for another time (specifically, after a new § 1B1.13 goes into effect, which probably will not be before November 2023. For now, movants for compassionate release would do well to apply Prof. Berman’s broad interpretation of Concepcion’s holding.

Concepcion v. United States, Case No 20-1650, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3070 (June 27, 2022)

ABA Journal, In unusual lineup, SCOTUS rules for pro se prisoner who sought lower sentence under First Step Act (June 27, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, SCOTUS ruling in Concepcion, while addressing crack cases, should also resolve circuit split on compassionate release factors (June 27, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Attempted Crime of Violence Does Not Support 18 USC 924(c) – Update for June 22, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

TAYLOR-MADE DECISION

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a 7-2 decision that an attempt to commit a crime of violence is not in itself a “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 USC § 924(c).

gunknot181009A little review: under 18 USC § 924(c), possessing, using or carrying a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug offense will earn a defendant a mandatory minimum consecutive sentence of at least five years (and much worse if the defendant waves it around or fires it). A “crime of violence” is one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”

This fairly straightforward question of what constitutes a crime of violence has spawned a series of Supreme Court decisions since Johnson v. United States in 2015. The last words on the subject were United States v. Davis, a 2019 decision holding that conspiracy to commit a crime of violence was not a “crime of violence” that would support a conviction under 18 USC § 924(c), and last summer’s Borden v. United States (an offense that can be committed recklessly cannot be a “crime of violence,” because a “crime of violence” has to be committed knowingly or intentionally).

The Court has directed that interpretation of whether a statute constitutes a crime of violence is a decision made categorically. The Court’s “categorical approach” determines whether a federal felony may serve as a predicate “crime of violence” within the meaning of the statute if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” This definition is commonly known as the “elements” clause.

The question is not how any particular defendant may have committed the crime. Instead, the issue is whether the federal felony that was charged requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of its case, that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

knifegunB170404This approach has caused a lot of mischief. The facts underlying yesterday’s decision, Taylor v. United States, were particularly ugly. Justin Taylor, the defendant, went to a drug buy intending to rip off the seller of his drugs. Before he could try to rob the seller, the seller smelled a setup, and a gunfight erupted. Justin was wounded. The drug dealer was killed.

Because Justin never actually robbed the seller – he didn’t have time to do so – he was convicted of an attempted Hobbs Act robbery under 18 USC § 1951 (a robbery that affects interstate commerce) and of an 18 USC § 924(c) offense for using a gun during a crime of violence. Justin argued that while he was guilty of the attempted Hobbs Act robbery, he could not be convicted of a § 924(c) offense because it’s possible to commit an attempted robbery without actually using or threatening to commit a violent act. Under Borden and Davis, Justin argued, merely attempting a crime of violence was not itself a crime of violence.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed.

Justice Gorsuch ruled that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not satisfy the “elements clause.” To secure a conviction for attempted Hobbs Act robbery, the government must prove that the defendant intended to complete the offense and completed a “substantial step” toward that end. An intention, the Court said, is just that and no more. And whatever a “substantial step” requires, it does not require the government to prove that the defendant used, attempted to use, or even threatened to use force against another person or his property. This is true even if the facts would allow the government to do so in many cases (as it obviously could have done in Taylor’s case).

maskgun200218The Court cited the Model Penal Code’s explanation of common-law robbery, which Justice Gorsuch called an “analogue” to the Hobbs Act. The MPC notes that “there will be cases, appropriately reached by a charge of attempted robbery, where the actor does not actually harm anyone or even threaten harm.” Likewise, the Supreme Court ruled, no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

Taylor raises interesting questions about “aiding and abetting.” In Rosemond v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can be convicted as an aider and abettor under 18 USC § 2 “without proof that he participated in each and every element of the offense.” Instead, Congress used language in the statute that “comprehends all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence… even if that aid relates to only one (or some) of a crime’s phases or elements.”

Taylor’s finding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery cannot support a § 924(c) conviction because a defendant can be convicted of the attempt without proof that he or she used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force, then it stands to reason that if the defendant can be convicted of aiding or abetting a Hobbs Act robbery without proof that he or she used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force, “aiding and abetting” likewise will not support a § 924(c) conviction.

In separate dissents, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito argued that the lower court should have been reversed. Justice Thomas said the court’s holding “exemplifies just how this Court’s ‘categorical approach’ has led the Federal Judiciary on a ‘journey Through the Looking Glass,’ during which we have found many ‘strange things.’”

violence180508Indeed, a layperson would find it baffling that Justin could shoot his target to death without the government being able to prove he used a gun in a crime of violence. But Justice Thomas’s ire is misplaced. One should not blame the sword for the hand that wields it. Congress wrote the statute. It can surely change it if it is not satisfied with how the Court says its plain terms require its application.

United States v. Taylor, Case No. 20-1459 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3017 (June 21, 2022).

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court’s Final Days Include Criminal Decisions – Update for June 20, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIG CRIMINAL DECISIONS STILL PENDING WITH ONLY TWO WEEKS OF SCOTUS TERM LEFT

The Supreme Court held two opinion days last week, but the most-watched criminal cases – United States v. Taylor, Concepcion v. United States and Ruan v. United States – remain among the 18 opinions yet to be issued before the Court’s term ends on June 30.

scotus161130Most people expect the two “big” cases, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen (a 2nd Amendment case) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (the possibly-leaked abortion decision) to happen on the last day. But Taylor, which concerns whether an attempted offense that would be a “crime of violence” for application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – the mandatory consecutive sentence for using a gun – is a “crime of violence” if it is only attempted but not completed – has been hanging around for six months since its December argument. Concepcion, which concerns proper resentencing considerations in First Step Section 404(b) resentencing, and Ruan, which considers physician liability under 21 USC 841(a), was argued in the Court’s February sitting.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that “the standard and ready explanation, of course, for why decisions in Taylor and Conception may be taking a long time is because the Justices are (perhaps deeply?) divided in these cases, and so we should expect multiple (and lengthy?) opinions. And, to add a bit of spicy speculation, I am inclined to guess that the delay is also partially a function of the Justices in these cases not being divided neatly along the “standard” ideological lines.”

rules201202The only case of interest to defendants last week was Kemp v. United States. In that case, petitioner Dexter Kemp filed a 28 USC 2255 motion in 2015. The District Court dismissed the motion as untimely, and Dix did not appeal. But three years later, he sought to reopen his 2255 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), rules which permit a court to reopen an otherwise final judgment if certain conditions are met. A 60(b)(1) motion has to allege that a mistake was made, and must be filed within a year, Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for any other just reason can be filed at any time, but is available only when the other grounds for relief specified in the Rule don’t apply.

Dex was right that the District Court had goofed on dismissing his § 2255 motion as untimely. In a just world, his § 2255 should be reopened, and that would be that. But in the real world, it’s not that easy.

The Supreme Court held that a judge’s error of law is a “mistake” within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), meaning that Dex’s motion fit under Rule 60(b)(1). Subject to the Rule’s one-year limitations period, Dex’s motion was late and had to be dismissed as untimely.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Any (spicy?) speculations about why SCOTUS has not yet decided Taylor or Conception, two little sentencing cases? (June 13, 2022)

Kemp v. United States, Case No. 21-5726, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2835 (June 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Bloodies Bivens – Update for June 13, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIVENS IS BARELY ALIVE AFTER SUPREME COURT MAULING

Rejecting 4th Amendment excessive force and 1st Amendment retaliation damages claims against a Border Patrol agent, the Supreme Court last week brought the venerable Bivens claim to the brink of extinction.

policeraid170824Federal law (42 USC § 1983) permits private citizens to sue state and local officials for violation of constitutional rights. But Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials and employees, and Congress has never passed a law similar to Section 1983 authorizing such actions against the feds.

However, back in 1971, the Supreme Court held that the right to file such an action should be presumed from the constitution, letting a 4th Amendment unlawful search and seizure claim go forward under “general principles of federal jurisdiction” in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

Since Bivens, SCOTUS has been trying to limit the holding, in fact turning down every Bivens claim since 1980. Last week, the Court adopted a test that just about assures that Bivens will not be usable for any claim other than unlawful search and seizure and 8th Amendment claims.

Last week’s case arose when a Border Patrol agent allegedly entered the driveways at Smuggler’s Inn, a bed-and-breakfast sort of place in Blaine, Washington. The Inn’s backyard property line is the Canadian border, with nothing but some warning signs to stop people from coming and going.  According to the decision, the facility is both Spartan and pricey, appealing only to a clientele that wants to sneak north or sneak south.

Because of that, the Border Patrol has a special love for the place. The Egbert case arose when a Border Patrol agent followed the Inn’s van into the driveway, suspecting the passenger – a man who had just arrived from Turkey – of immigration shenanigans. When the Inn’s owner told the officer to leave, the border cop allegedly roughed him up. When the owner complained about the agent’s conduct, the Border Patrol allegedly began a campaign of harassment.

The Inn’s owner sued under Bivens for alleged 4th Amendment excessive force and 1st Amendment retaliation violations. But last week, the Supreme Court stopped him in his tracks.

smugglersinn220613

“[R]ather than dispense with Bivens altogether,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the majority, “we have emphasized that recognizing a cause of action under Bivens is ‘a disfavored judicial activity.’” Yet, while it kept Bivens alive, the Court make it clear that Bivens remains on thin ice, warning “that if we were called to decide Bivens today, we would decline to discover any implied causes of action in the Constitution.”

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Thomas applied the two-step inquiry established in prior Bivens cases — whether the case involves an “extension” of Bivens into a “new context” that is “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by this Court,” and whether “special factors… counsel hesitation about granting the extension.”

For the “special-factors” analysis, the Court asks broadly whether judicial intrusion into a “given field” is inappropriate. Here, Thomas wrote, the question was whether it was appropriate to imply a Bivens action should apply to Border Patrol agents generally. Because border protection implicates national security, the Court ruled, it was more appropriate to leave the authorization of any remedy to Congress.

The opinion thus reduces the two-step analysis “into a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.”

paperwork171019Here, the Court said, it also matters that a citizen has an adequate alternative remedy in the Border Patrol’s internal grievance process. This is despite the fact that that process does not entitle a complainant to participate in the proceeding, is not subject to judicial review, and does not provide a money damages remedy to the complainant. But because Bivens “is concerned solely with deterring the unconstitutional acts of government officers” with the goal of preventing constitutional violations, the Court said, that’s enough.

Bivens cannot be used for 1st Amendment retaliation claims under any circumstances, the Court said. Allowing such “claims imposes costs and burdens on federal officers affecting how they perform their duties; Congress should decide whether the public interest is served by allowing damages and imposing those costs.”

The good news, if there is any, is that the Court acknowledged that a Bivens action still exists “for a federal prisoner’s inadequate-care claim under the 8th Amendment.” But it’s pretty clear for federal prisoners that, except for that “deliberate indifference” claim, Bivens is dead.

Egbert v. Boule, Case No. 21-147, 596 U.S. —, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 2829 (June 8, 2022)

SCOTUSBlog, Court constricts, even if it does not quite eliminate, damages actions under Bivens (June 8, 2022)

Interrogating Justice, SCOTUS Says Doing Nothing Deters Fourth Amendment Violations (June 9, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Burning Midnight Oil To Finish Term – Update for June 8, 2022

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUPREME COURT FACES HISTORIC BACKLOG IN FINAL MONTH OF TERM

The Supreme Court – waiting until the bitter end to do the largest share of its work in more than 70 years – has scheduled a rare second opinion day for today.

scotus161130At 10 am, the Court will issue one or more opinions. It still has a lot to choose from.

The court is scheduled to hand down 30 more opinions, 48% of its expected total in argued cases, as its 2021-22 term ends in slightly more than three weeks. While most people are awaiting rulings that could hold that abortion is not a constitutional right but carrying a concealed gun is, there are five decisions of particular interest to federal inmates and defendants:

• Concepcion v. United States, Case No. 20-1650. Issue: Whether, when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act (Fair Sentencing Act retroactivity), a district court must – or even may – consider intervening legal and factual developments.

• Ruan v. United States, Case No. 20-1410. Issue: Whether a physician charged with prescribing controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted under 21 USC § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he or she “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that the prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.

• United States v. Taylor, Case No. 20-1459: Whether 18 USC § 924(c)’s “crime of violence” definition excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery (which could end up excluding all attempted crimes of violence from being predicates for § 924(c) offenses).

• Egbert v. Boule, Case No. 21-147: Whether one can sue a federal officer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics for First Amendment retaliation claims.

• Kemp v. United States, Case No. 21-5726: Whether F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.

scotussplit190627The Supreme Court typically announces opinions on Monday, but as June progresses, more second opinion days like today are likely.

Supreme Court Faces Historic Case Backlog as Fractious Term Comes to an End (June 1)

The New York Times, We preview the five biggest rulings expected from the Supreme Court in the next few weeks (June 8, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root