The government won one of the biggest early criminal cases before the Court, Pulsifer v. United States, which concerned the scope of relief from mandatory minimums provided by the First Step Act of 2018. The question presented in Pulsifer centered on the meaning of the word “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), a provision that provides a safety valve for certain nonviolent drug offenders with limited criminal history from otherwise applicable mandatory minimums. Under the statute, the safety valve applies if “the defendant does not have” three separate sentencing characteristics, which are listed and joined by the term “and” in the statute. In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kagan, the Court agreed with the government that, when read in context, the list of characteristics functions as “an eligibility checklist.” Pointing to a number of examples from a wide range of sources—including the children’s book The Very Hungry Caterpillar—Justice Kagan concluded that the statutory term “and” functions as an “or” for purposes of the statute. A contrary conclusion, she reasoned, would “allow relief to defendants with more serious records while barring relief to defendants with less serious ones.” In a lengthy dissenting opinion joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, Justice Gorsuch accused the majority of ignoring the ordinary meaning of “and” in order to account for “policy concerns” that the Court had “no business considering.”
The Court’s final sitting in April featured several of the Court’s highest-profile cases. Fischer v. United States asks the Court to weigh in on the prosecutions of those involved in the January 6 attacks on the US Capitol, determining the meaning of a federal statute that criminally prohibits “corruptly” obstructing congressional inquiries and investigations. In Moyle v. United States, the Court will have one if its 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. The question presented in Moyle is 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. Finally, in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Court will address whether it is constitutional for a city to enforce 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.
One of the biggest cases of the term is United States v. Rahimi, which involves a facial Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a prohibition on the possession of firearms for persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. Rahimi is one of several cases emerging from the lower courts concerning the validity of Section 922(g) provisions in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court’s blockbuster Second Amendment decision from 2022 that introduced a new text-history-and-tradition test for determining the constitutionality of firearms laws. Following oral argument in the fall, more than a majority of the Court appeared ready to uphold the law. The big question is what path it will take to do so—and what effect that rationale will have on a host of lower-court challenges to other pending cases involving other provisions of Section 922(g), most notably Section 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing a firearm and is one of the most frequently prosecuted federal crimes.
At the time of this writing, decisions in these cases have not been issued, but they are expected by the end of 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466
Argument: April 24, 2024
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.
