The big news on the criminal docket is the addition of three high-profile cases set for argument this spring. First, in Fischer v. United States, the Court will weigh in on the prosecutions of those involved in the January 6 attacks on the U.S. Capitol, determining the meaning of a federal statute that criminally prohibits “corruptly” obstructing congressional inquiries and investigations. Fischer seeks to have the charge against him dismissed on the ground that the statute, which was enacted following Enron’s collapse, applies only to evidence tampering that affects congressional proceedings—not the sort of violent conduct associated with January 6. Whatever the Court decides, it will have ramifications for hundreds of January 6 defendants charged under the statute, including former President Trump.
Second, in Moyle v. United States, the Court will consider whether Idaho’s criminal abortion statute, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. That federal statute requires hospitals that receive Medicare funding to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies. This case will present one of the Court’s first opportunities to address abortion in light of its landmark 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade. In a separate case this Term, the Court is also considering the extent to which a widely used abortion pill can be made available through mail-order prescription.
Third, in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Court will address whether the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prevents a city from enforcing an anti-camping ordinance, subject to civil and criminal punishment, against homeless individuals when the local homeless population exceeds the capacity of local homeless shelters. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit held that punishing individuals for conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless is equivalent to punishing them for their status—as homeless individuals—which is a violation of the Eighth Amendment under the Court’s 1962 decision in Robinson v. California. The Court’s decision will have a significant practical effect on how many cities address the issue of homelessness. As a doctrinal matter, it gives the Court an opportunity to reconsider whether Robinson is properly conceptualized as an Eighth Amendment holding; some scholars have long suggested that it is better understood as being grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court is done adding cases to its docket for this Term. Decisions in the pending cases are expected by June. Any new cert grants would be for next Term. Notably, the Court has not granted certiorari on a Fourth Amendment issue since late 2020.
Sentencing—Safety Valve for Mandatory Minimums
Pulsifer v. United States, No. 22-340
Argument: October 2, 2023
Question presented:
Whether, in order for a defendant to satisfy the prerequisite for “safety-valve” sentencing relief in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), a court must find that the defendant does not have more than 4 criminal history points (excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense); does not have a prior 3-point offense; and does not have a prior 2-point violent offense.
Second Amendment—Prohibiting Firearm Possession
United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915
Argument: November 7, 2023
Question presented:
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.
Sentencing—Armed Career Criminal Act
Brown v. United States, No. 22-6389
Jackson v. United States, No. 22-6640
Argument: November 27, 2023
Question presented:
Whether the classification of a prior state conviction as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii), depends on the federal controlled-substance schedules in effect at the time of the defendant’s federal sentencing.
Sixth Amendment—Confrontation Clause
Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899
Argument: January 10, 2024
Question presented:
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.
Sentencing—Forfeiture
McIntosh v. United States, No. 22-7386
Argument: February 27, 2024
Question presented:
Whether a district court may enter a criminal-forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.
Evidence—Expert Witness
Diaz v. United States, No. 23-14 Argument: March 19, 2024
Question presented:
Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.
Sixth Amendment—Jury Trial
Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370 Argument: March 27, 2024
Question presented:
Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
Federal Criminal Law—Public Corruption
Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108
Argument: April 15, 2024
Question Presented:
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
Federal Criminal Law—Obstruction
Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572
Argument: April 16, 2024
Question Presented:
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, should be construed to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
Habeas Corpus—Capital Punishment
Thornell v. Jones, No. 22-982
Argument: April 17, 2024
Question presented:
Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied the prejudice standard under Strickland v. Washington when reviewing the district court’s factual and credibility findings and granting habeas relief
Eighth Amendment—Cruel and Unusual Punishment
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175
Argument: April 22, 2024
Question Presented:
Whether the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eight Amendment prevents a city from enforcing an anti-camping ordinance, which is subject to civil and criminal penalties, against homeless individuals when the local homeless population outstrips the capacity of local homeless shelters.
Criminal Abortion—Preemption
Moyle v. United States, No. 23-726
Argument: April 24, 2024
Question Presented:
Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts Idaho’s criminal abortion statute, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother.
Not Yet Set for Oral Argument
Capital Punishment—Due Process
Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466
Questions Presented:
(1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it; and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.