Constitutional Law Criminal Law Statute 
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 6, 2023
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.
Constitutional Law Reporter
SEPTEMBER 8, 2023
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JonathanTurley
NOVEMBER 14, 2021
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.”
JonathanTurley
APRIL 1, 2023
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.
JonathanTurley
MARCH 20, 2021
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.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 26, 2023
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.
JonathanTurley
MAY 12, 2021
” The language of the statute in my view is unconstitutional due to its sweeping criminalization of any “curse or abuse” that could “provoke a breach of the peace.” ” However, the appellate panel corrected noted that such laws are narrowly construed in light of controlling precedent. .”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content