Issues

The United States prosecuted Robert J. Stevens (“Stevens”) for violating 18 U.S.C. § 48, which states: “Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.” Stevens was prosecuted for selling videos depicting dog fights. Stevens claimed that § 48 violates his First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. The Third Circuit held that § 48 reached a form of protected speech and that the government’s interest in preventing animal cruelty is not a sufficiently compelling interest to justify a ban on depictions of animal cruelty. How the Supreme Court decides this case will reflect its view on the scope of the First Amendment right to speech and affect the power of Congress to identify new areas of unprotected speech.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Efrain Santos was convicted in Indiana federal court of running an illegal gambling business and money laundering. He presented a collateral attack against his conviction following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in another case, where it held that to prove money laundering, the government is required to show that profits from the underlying illegal activity were used to further promote or conceal that activity. Because Santos’s conviction was based on evidence that he used gross receipts, not profits, to promote his gambling ring, the District Court overturned his money laundering conviction. The Seventh Circuit upheld that decision, and the government appealed, contending that to secure a conviction it is only required to prove that gross receipts are used in a money laundering scheme. The government argues that statutory interpretation and practical enforcement considerations mandate a reading that “proceeds” means gross receipts, and Santos responds that in light of the fact that “proceeds” is not defined within the statute, the rule of lenity requires the Court to uphold the Seventh Circuit’s more restrictive reading of the term as profits. The outcome of this case will affect money laundering prosecutions tied to a wide variety of illegal activities and will affect the government’s burden in proving the elements of this charge.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), applies to felons convicted of firearms possession who have previously been convicted of three or more serious crimes, including state drug offenses with a maximum sentence of ten or more years. A federal district court sentenced Gino Rodriquez to 92 months' imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon. The Government appealed, arguing the court should have applied the ACCA, which requires a minimum fifteen-year sentence. The ACCA does not tell federal judges how to determine what the maximum possible sentence for an underlying crime was under state law. The Government argues that when a crime is committed by a repeat offender, or "recidivist," at the time of their prior conviction, the court should include in the maximum any sentence enhancements imposed based on the offender's recidivism. Rodriquez argues the maximum sentence should be only the statutory maximum for the crime charged, excluding such enhancements. The sentence in question here is a 1995 drug conviction Rodriquez received under Washington State law. The Government said the conviction qualified as an ACCA predicate because in 1995 Rodriquez was a repeat offender and Washington law provided a ten-year peak sentence for such offenders. The district court ruled that Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents required it to consider only the sentence for the underlying crime without additional penalties for recidivism. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. In this case, the United States Supreme Court will clarify how federal courts should treat recidivist sentence enhancements when determining the maximum sentence for a state drug conviction for ACCA purposes. This decision will add to the Court's rapidly developing interpretation of the ACCA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2002, an Immigration Naturalization Service agent discovered that Juan Resendiz-Ponce was in the United States illegally and had him deported. A year later border patrol agents detained Resendiz-Ponce after he presented false documentation and falsely stated his intended destination. The United States brought suit against Resendiz-Ponce for attempting to re-enter the country after having been previously deported, and he was convicted. While the indictment alleged that Resendiz-Ponce had attempted to re-enter the United States illegally, it did not allege that he presented false documents, made false statements, or performed any other act associated with his alleged attempt. Resendiz-Ponce appealed his conviction, claiming that the indictment’s failure to allege an act introduced a fatal flaw into his trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with this argument and reversed the conviction. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court will determine whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment requires automatic reversal on appeal.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Joseph Olson was injured and nearly killed when a nine-ton rock fell on him while he was working in a mine in Arizona. In his suit for damages he alleged that the federal agency responsible for ensuring his safety, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, was negligent in its inspection of the mine and was responsible for his injuries. The federal government argued in its defense that under the Federal Tort Claims Act it can be held liable under state law only in the way in which a private person, not a government agency, is held liable. Thus, the government urged that since there was no like action against private persons for this type of situation, it could not be held liable. This case may have potentially significant effects not just on individuals and their ability to sue the federal government, but also federal agencies and their ability to avoid tort liability during the course of carrying out their duties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

In 1964, pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, the Navajo Nation entered into an agreement with a third party to lease a substantial portion of Navajo land for coal mining activities. In 1984, pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Nation sought the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior to renegotiate the royalty rate allotted in the lease to comport with changed market conditions. After a series of negotiations, in 1987 the Nation agreed to-and the Secretary of the Interior approved-a series of amendments to the original lease. In 1993, the Nation initiated proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Secretary had been improperly influenced by the coal company, and as a result, had breached his fiduciary duty to the Nation when he approved the 1987 lease amendments. After a series of appeals, in 2003, the Supreme Court held the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 did not create an actionable claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the United States. On remand, the Federal Circuit read the Supreme Court's decision narrowly, and held that the Nation's claim was nonetheless actionable based on a common law fiduciary duty arising from the network of statutes and regulations defining the relationship between the Navajo Nation and the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

A jury convicted Respondent Glenn Marcus on federal charges of sex trafficking and forced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. On appeal, a Second Circuit panel vacated the convictions as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, because Congress enacted the statute two years after the earliest criminal conduct the indictment alleged. Although Marcus failed to preserve the ex post facto violation for appeal, the Second Circuit cited the “plain error doctrine” found in Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for authority to vacate. Rule 52(b) provides that when “[a] plain error [] affects substantial rights [it] may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention.” Petitioner United States asserts that the Court of Appeals’ “any possibility” standard contradicted Supreme Court precedent. The government argues that a defendant has to demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” a conviction was based on his pre-enactment conduct to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Marcus disputes the government’s interpretation, contending that the Second Circuit decision was consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

FBI agents installed a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking device on Antoine Jones’s vehicle as part of a drug trafficking investigation. The United States used the locational data from the GPS in a federal trial that resulted in Jones’s conviction for conspiracy. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed that conviction, holding that the agents needed a warrant before installing the GPS. The United States argues that a warrant was unnecessary because Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements in public and was never deprived use of his Jeep. Jones responds that he has a privacy interest in the aggregation of his movements over a prolonged period and that the aggregation of such information interferes with his use of the Jeep. The Supreme Court’s decision will affect how police employ new technologies to reduce the manpower and cost required for criminal investigations. The Court’s decision will also consider how citizens can protect themselves from government officials’ possible abuse of new technologies, particularly where misuse threatens fundamental privacy rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2002, the Jicarilla Apache Nation (“Jicarilla,” “Jicarilla Tribe” or “Tribe”) filed a breach of trust action against the United States, alleging mismanagement of funds held in trust for the Tribe. In 2008, Jicarilla moved to compel the production of a few hundred documents exchanged between the government and its attorneys, but the government refused to disclose nearly 160 documents on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently granted Jicarilla’s motion to compel production of the documents, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Now, the United States argues that disclosure of the documents was unwarranted because no statute or regulation specifically requires the disclosure. The Jicarilla Tribe, however, contends that the government must be treated like an ordinary private trustee and forced to disclose information exchanged with its attorneys.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2006, the IRS adjusted Respondent Home Concrete’s 1999 tax return, claiming that Home Concrete overstated its basis in sold assets. The Fourth Circuit found that this adjustment was untimely under the general three year statute of limitations for IRS actions, concluding that overstatements of basis are not omissions that would trigger an extended six year statute of limitations. Petitioner, the United States, argues that the language and purpose behind the statute clarify that overstating a sold asset’s basis triggers the extended period, and that the Fourth Circuit should have deferred to the IRS's statutory interpretation contained within a Treasury Department regulation finalized during the appeal. Home Concrete argues that Supreme Court precedent applies here, eliminating ambiguity in the statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve a circuit split over the proper limitations period; the decision will also address the degree of deference due to a Treasury regulation that may be interpreted as conflicting with Supreme Court precedent, and that may be viewed as applying retroactively. The Court’s decision may affect the IRS’s timeframe to detect certain complex tax schemes, and the time period within which taxpayers are subject to audits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources