Supreme Court Opinions

The Supreme Court has granted review in a cluster of cases that go directly to core federal criminal issues: Hemani (Second Amendment limits on § 922(g)(3) “drug user” cases), Barrett (how far prosecutors can stack § 924(c) and § 924(j) firearm penalties), Ellingburg (whether MVRA restitution is “punishment” for Ex Post Facto purposes), and Villarreal (Sixth Amendment limits on barring attorney-client consultation during trial recesses). The Court also agreed to hear Noem v. Al Otro Lado, which addresses asylum “metering” at the border and could influence how “entry” and presence are defined in illegal entry, reentry, and smuggling prosecutions.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the First Step Act’s reduced penalties for § 924(c) offenses apply at a defendant’s resentencing when the defendant’s prior sentence has been vacated. The Court reasoned that a vacated sentence is a sentence that “has not been imposed” within the meaning of § 403(b).

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a revocation sentence, holding that courts may not consider retribution (the need for the sentence imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense”) when deciding whether to revoke a defendant’s supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that a defendant who induces a victim to enter a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of wire fraud even if he did not seek to cause economic loss.

In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed a § 924(c) conviction, holding that state murder statutes encompassing omissions or a failure to act necessarily involve the “use of physical force” within the meaning of the statute.

In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a bank-fraud conviction, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which makes it a crime to “knowingly make any false statement” to influence the FDIC, requires a statement that is false as a matter of fact and does not criminalize statements that are misleading but technically true.

In a 6-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that due process is violated when prosecutors fail to correct false testimony that could reasonably affect a jury’s verdict. The Court applied Napue v. Illinois and found that Oklahoma’s failure to correct its key witness’s false statements required a new trial.

In a matter of first impression for the Supreme Court, a 7-2 majority of the Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act only applies in the civil context and that there is no statutory immunity for foreign sovereigns in the criminal context. The Court remanded to the Second Circuit, however, to determine whether a bank partially owned by the Republic of Turkey could still claim immunity under common law against claims of violating anti-Iranian sanctions.

In a 6-3 decision, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations began running on a death row inmate’s claim of insufficient procedural due process when his prior “state litigation ended.” In this case, that was not when the trial court denied his motion for DNA testing of the murder weapon, but rather when the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were not violated by the trial court’s admission of his co-defendant’s confession, during which his co-defendant stated that the defendant committed the murder, because the defendant’s name had been redacted from the confession. Even though the defendant was logically the only person the co-defendant’s confession could be referring to, the Supreme Court held it was not “directly accusatory,” or at least not directly enough, to warrant reversal.