Supreme Court Cases of Interest

Pending Supreme Court Criminal Law and Procedure Cases to Date

Eight of the 11 cases on the Court’s criminal docket for the October 2024 Term present questions concerning the interpretation of federal penal statutes, a category of cases that has dominated the Court’s criminal docket in recent years. The other three cases present difficult questions related to the Fourth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, and the Due Process Clause. Decisions in all 11 cases are expected by June.

In December, the Court heard argument in Kousisis v. United States, the latest in a series of cases in recent years concerning the scope of the federal fraud laws. The case poses the question whether a fraudulent-inducement theory can be used to prosecute someone who uses deception to enter into a transaction that does not financially harm the victim. The justices spent most of the oral argument asking each side a number of hypotheticals to tease out the limits of their position. Several justices expressed concern over the practical consequences of adopting an overly broad reading of the statutes. A narrow construction seems likely and would align with the Court’s practice of narrowly construing the federal fraud statutes.

In January, the Court heard argument in Thompson v. United States, another case concerning the degree to which federal law criminalizes deception. The question presented is whether a merely misleading statement constitutes a false statement under a statute that prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement” in certain communications with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or banks that it insures. At argument, the justices seemed to signal agreement with the petitioner that not all misleading statements qualify as false statements. Yet the justices also expressed significant doubt that the statements at issue about the amount of debt the petitioner owed to the FDIC did not count as false statements in light of the context in which the statements were made. While a narrow reading of the statute appears likely, it is doubtful that the reading will be so narrow as to exclude the petitioner’s conduct in this case.

Federal Criminal Law—Firearms Regulation

Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852

Argument: October 8, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.

Capital Punishment—Due Process

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466

Argument: October 9, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s 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.

Federal Criminal Law—Penalties

Delligati v. United States, No. 23-825

Argument: November 12, 2024

Question Presented:

Whether attempted murder, in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5), qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).

Federal Criminal Law—Fraud

Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909

Argument: December 12, 2024

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, where inflicting economic harm on the victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”

Federal Criminal Law—Sentencing

Hewitt v. United States, No. 23-1002

Argument: January 13, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.

Federal Criminal Law—False Statements

Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095

Argument: January 14, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

Fourth Amendment—Excessive Force

Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239

Argument: January 22, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Collateral Review—Jury Trial

Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324

Argument: February 25, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

Federal Criminal Law—Sentencing

Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483

Argument: February 25, 2025

Question Presented:

Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

Not Yet Set for Oral Argument

Collateral Review—Successive Habeas Applications

Rivers v. Lumpkin, No. 23-1345

Question Presented:

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings—depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.

Collateral Review—Successive Habeas Applications

Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438

Questions Presented:

(1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives the Supreme Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255.