Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: overfederalization
In this brief, we argue that the government’s attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
The Supreme Court unfortunately ruled against our position and held that a defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. You can read the opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks John D. Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellant
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this amicus brief, we argue 18 U.S.C. § 1505 incorporates a nexus requirement and that the state must prove an act of obstruction has a relationship in time, causation, or logic with the proceedings alleged to have been corruptly affected. It is vital to read criminal statutes like §1505 with restraint where a broad reading risks criminalizing otherwise “innocuous” conduct.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Sullivan’s jury conviction for obstruction of justice. You can read the opinion here.
Filed with NACDL.
We thank Jeffrey R. Babbin, Nathan J. Guevremont, and Anjali Dalal of Wiggin and Dana LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we highlight the necessity of quid pro quo as the government’s burden of proof in federal bribery prosecutions. Without this requirement, individuals may be prosecuted whenever federal prosecutors merely allege an inferred connection between a campaign contribution and an official act. Such connections are an inherent feature of our campaign finance system in which constituents regularly support politicians who represent and advance their interests in the public arena. Exacerbating this due process concern is the fact that the quid pro quo requirement is not actually spelled out in any of the federal statutes used by prosecutors, so the public is left to look to the inconsistent—and sometimes internally contradictory—decisions of the courts of appeals.
Petition for certiorari denied December 16, 2024.
We thank Anna Skotko of Skotko Law PLLC and Daniel Noble and Vlad Shafran of Krieger Lewin LLP for their pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue for the Court to reject expansive federal prosecutorial theories to maintain fair notice for defendants and keep federalism intact. Amorphous theories of criminal liability should not sway the courts and prosecutors should not be able to convert every local transgression into a federal crime.
Filed with Washington Legal Foundation.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in a 6-3 decision and narrowed the scope of federal bribery prosecutions on June 27, 2024. You can read the decision here.
We thank Christopher Man and Abbe David Lowell for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this brief, we argue that the government’s attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
Filed with Cato Institute and NACDL.
The Supreme Court granted cert. in this case on June 17, 2024.
Due Process Institute thanks Lawrence Lustberg, Thomas Valen, and Stephen Marietta of Gibbons P.C. for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellant
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
In this brief, we argue that the government’s attempt to prosecute breaches of state contractual provisions under federal criminal property fraud statutes violates fundamental principles regarding notice and federalism.
Filed with Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Cato Institute, and NACDL.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s forfeiture order and remanded for further proceedings. You can read the decision from September 27, 2023 here.
Due Process Institute thanks Lawrence Lustberg and Thomas Valen of Gibbons P.C. for their amicus support on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Similar to our other amicus briefs involving Chevron deference and the rule of lenity, the question in this case is when they conflict in the interpretation of an ambiguous statute with both criminal and civil applications, which should prevail? We argue the court should interpret the statute narrowly, in accordance with the rule of lenity, and not give Chevron deference to a federal agency’s broader interpretation. Applying the rule of lenity preserves the separation of powers and ensures fair warning to criminal defendants.
Petition for certiorari denied October 3, 2022.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we argued to curtail the increasing exposure to criminal penalties faced by physicians when they treat patients in good faith. Due to the lack of clear guidelines, prosecutors are left to develop their own standards on unlawful dispensing and physicians are left without adequate notice of what conduct may conceivably subject them to decades of imprisonment.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that the mens rea “knowingly or intentionally” applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause. You can read the 9-0 decision here.
We thank Andrew Prins, Cherish Drain, and Joseph Sitzmann of Latham & Watkins for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Appellant
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
The question in this case is when Chevron deference and the rule of lenity conflict in the interpretation of an ambiguous statute with both criminal and civil applications, which should prevail? Our amicus brief argues the court should interpret the statute narrowly, in accordance with the rule of lenity, and not give Chevron deference to a federal agency’s broader interpretation. Applying the rule of lenity preserves the separation of powers and ensures fair warning to criminal defendants.
The Fifth Circuit’ affirmed the lower’s interpretation that bump stocks qualify as machine guns. You can read the opinion from December 21, 2022 here.
We thank John Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Defendant
Supreme Court of South Dakota
In this amicus brief, we argue that challenges by state officials against the legalization of adult use marijuana in South Dakota should be rejected. Although federal law prohibits marijuana consumption, South Dakota’s drug law reforms are supported by long-standing precedent. Thirteen other states have legalized adult use of cannabis through ballot initiatives and federal officials have consistently practiced non-intervention in regard to these reforms.
Filed with Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, and Reason Foundation.
The Supreme Court of South Dakota ruled that Amendment A, the ballot initiative that legalized adult marijuana use, violates Article XXIII. You can read the decision from November 24, 2021 here.
We thank Patrick J. Lee-O’Halloran Thompson of Tarasek Lee-O’Halloran PLLC for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Rehearing
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
This amicus brief tackles the intersection of the rule of lenity and Chevron deference. The brief concludes that the rule of lenity should prevail when such a conflict occurs in order to preserve proper separation of powers in our federal government and fulfill the constitutional requirement of fair notice.
Order granting rehearing en banc vacated on March 5th, 2021.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.
Due Process Institute filed another brief in this case during 2019 and the court has granted the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: Chevron deference
At issue in this case is the precedence of the “rule of lenity” doctrine versus Chevron deference in the interpretation of language that defines a crime.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter as well as The Buckeye Institute for joining our brief.
Petition for certiorari denied March 2, 2020.
Brief in Support of Appellant
10th Circuit Court of Appeals
In this brief, we argue that the rule of lenity should take precedence over conflicting canons of construction (e.g. the doctrine of Chevron deference) for statutes with criminal application given the risk to life and liberty.
The 10th Circuit unfortunately ruled against Aposhian in an opinion you can read here.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his amicus support on this matter.