Supreme Court Opinions

In a unanimous opinion, the Court upheld a warrantless entry into a defendant’s home, where officers found him with a gun and later charged him with assaulting an officer. The Court upheld the warrantless entry under the “emergency aid” exception to the warrant requirement, as the officers had an objectively reasonable basis that the defendant-occupant was seriously injured or imminently threatened serious injury. The defendant’s ex-girlfriend told police that he had threatened to kill himself, and officers arriving at his house received no answer and observed empty beer cans, an empty holster, and an apparent suicide note through the window.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement obtaining Google “Location History” data amounts to a “search” under the Fourth Amendment, thus requiring a warrant. The Court held that law enforcement invades a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy when it seeks data that precisely tracks the person’s movements, similar to the cell-site location data in Carpenter v. United States. In this armed bank robbery case, police obtained a “geofence” warrant that allowed them to obtain location data for all devices near the bank at the time of the robbery and then employ a multi-step process to narrow the devices and obtain identifying information for their users. The Court remanded for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the warrant met the particularity and probable cause requirements, including in executing the later steps, and whether the good faith exception applies.

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.