Recent SCOTUS Cases

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a defendant’s conviction for encouraging and/or inducing an alien to come to the U.S. for a criminal purpose. The Court rejected the defendant’s facial overbreadth argument under the First Amendment, holding that “encourage” and “induce” are “terms of art” under 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and that, as such, the statute criminalizes only the “purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law.”

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution “permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.”

In a case involving the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine, wherein a federal court will not consider a defendant’s petition for review of a state-court conviction unless state law is inadequate for review, a 5-4 majority held that a capital defendant denial of post-conviction relief under Arizona state law was not foreclosed from federal review. The Court held that the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision that an intervening U.S. Supreme Court opinion was not a “significant change in law” presented an exceptional case because the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision rested “on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.” The Court’s decision may broaden federal jurisdiction to consider post-conviction petitions involving questions of state law, which are normally precluded from being raised in federal court.

In an 8-1 opinion, the Supreme Court held that a healthcare fraud defendant’s use of patient information to fraudulently bill Medicaid did not constitute aggravated identity theft under 18 USC 1028A. Under 1028A, which adds a consecutive 2-year sentence when a defendant uses or possesses another person’s means of identification during another offense, the government must show that the defendant’s use or possession of another’s identification “is at the crux” of the underlying offense. The Court concluded that 1028A penalizes “identity theft,” and it is not sufficient that another person’s identifying information was merely involved in or used in an offense without showing more.

At issue was whether the sentencing court erred in holding that it 924(c) deprived it of discretion to run Lora’s two sentences concurrently for drug trafficking and violating 924(j). In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that 924(j) and 924(c) set forth different offenses with different sentencing provisions. Since courts otherwise have discretion to run sentences concurrently or consecutively, the sentencing court erred in finding that it was bound by 924(c) in imposing a sentence for a violation of 924(j).

At issue was whether the First Amendment requires that prosecutors in a “true threats” case show that a defendant’s speech is not only objectively threatening, but that the defendant was subjectively aware of their threatening character. In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that the State prove a defendant had “some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature,” though the State can prove that under a recklessness standard by showing that a defendant consciously disregarded the threatening nature of his communications.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution in a “pill mill” case, where a doctor has been charged with unlawfully prescribing drugs, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor was acting in a manner not authorized by the statute, i.e. that the doctor knew that their prescribing practices were unauthorized and was not acting in “good faith.” Previously, doctors could be convicted if their prescriptions were not for a legitimate purpose or otherwise not within the usual course of a professional medical practice–a standard resembling negligence.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that courts considering an inmate’s motion to reduce sentence pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, which applies to crack-cocaine convictions, may consider all relevant materials when considering whether to modify, and by how much, the inmate’s sentence. Some legal scholars believe the opinion should help resolve the circuit split regarding what circumstances a court can consider when reviewing an inmate’s motion for “compassionate release.”

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that an officer’s interrogation in violation of Miranda does not create a constitutional claim under 42 USC 1983. The Court took a narrow view of Miranda warnings as merely a vehicle to protect other underlying rights, not as an underlying right itself.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that a 1983 claim was the proper vehicle for a death row inmate challenging his manner of execution.