Remove Constitutional Law Remove Criminal Law Remove Statute
article thumbnail

SCOTUS Narrows Reach of Identity Fraud Statute

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. The justices unanimously held that a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. In Durbin v. United States , 599 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S.

Statute 52
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Encouraging Illegal Immigration

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court’s Decision The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2, holding that because §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote on behalf of the majority.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?

JonathanTurley

However, the most damaging moment came outside of the presence of the jury when the judge drilled down on the law. He told the prosecutors “I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education.”

Statute 56
article thumbnail

Federal Judge Enjoins Tennessee Law Limiting Drag Shows

JonathanTurley

Section 2 of the Statute makes it “an offense for a person to perform adult cabaret entertainment,” either “(A) On public property; or (B) in a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult.” The vagueness problems could be reduced by limiting the scope to adult entertainment settings.

article thumbnail

UNC Law Student Who Questioned Racial Incident Is Disqualified From Running For New Office

JonathanTurley

For example, in reviewing a criminal law (which is admittedly raises a more heightened concern), the Court in C onnally v. The Supreme Court has long opposed such vague terms as the basis for sanctions not only as a free speech matter but a matter of due process. General Construction Co. , 269 U.S. DeBartolo Corp.

Laws 33
article thumbnail

Supreme Court narrowly interprets ban on “encouraging or inducing” immigrants to remain unlawfully in the United States

SCOTUSBlog

An expansive reading of the statute, the court recognized, would arguably criminalize political advocacy or general encouragement. That means that someone can only run afoul of the statute if they intend for an immigrant to come or remain in the U.S. while knowing that is unlawful.

article thumbnail

Michigan Woman Criminally Investigated for Social Media Attacks on Anti-Maskers

JonathanTurley

The referral shows how such ambiguous statutes undermine free speech. (d) Conduct arising from posting the message causes the victim to suffer emotional distress and to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.”. All four criteria must be met.

Statute 34