Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Send us Fan Mail
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that a prosecution for falsifying a document in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1519 must be brought in the district where the falsification occurred, not where the federal investigation that the defendant intended to obstruct was located. Ahmad Abouammo, while in Seattle, created and emailed a fake invoice to FBI agents conducting an investigation based in San Francisco, and was subsequently tried and convicted in the Northern District of California. The Court reversed, explaining that constitutional venue rules focus on the location of the offense’s “essential conduct elements,” and §1519 criminalizes only the act of falsifying a document with obstructive intent. Because the statute does not require any actual obstruction or effect on an investigation, the location of the investigation and any contemplated consequences are irrelevant to venue. Rejecting both the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on the statute’s intent element and the Government’s argument that §1519 is an inchoate obstruction offense, the Court concluded that the only conduct constituting the crime occurred in Seattle, making the Western District of Washington the proper venue for trial.
Support the show

Send us Fan Mail
The Supreme Court held that the FCC’s procedure for assessing monetary forfeitures against regulated entities does not violate the Seventh Amendment because the agency’s forfeiture orders do not themselves impose a legally enforceable obligation to pay and do not conclusively determine the facts underlying liability. Although the FCC may investigate alleged violations and issue forfeiture orders under 47 U.S.C. §503, payment can only be compelled through a separate enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice under §504, where the defendant is entitled to a de novo trial and a jury may make the ultimate factual determinations. Distinguishing its recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, where agency-imposed penalties were immediately enforceable without a jury determination, the Court emphasized that FCC forfeiture orders are merely preliminary steps that neither bind the recipient nor carry legal consequences absent a subsequent court proceeding. Because the statutory scheme preserves the opportunity for a jury trial before any enforceable obligation is imposed, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, which had found the scheme unconstitutional, and affirmed the Second Circuit, which upheld it. 
Support the show

Send us Fan Mail
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court held that Amarin failed to plausibly allege that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin’s patented cardiovascular-use methods for Vascepa. Although Hikma marketed a generic version of the drug using an FDA-approved “skinny label” that omitted the patented cardiovascular indication, Amarin argued that various statements in Hikma’s labeling, website, patient materials, and press releases nevertheless encouraged doctors to prescribe the drug for the patented use. The Court rejected that theory, emphasizing that inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) requires affirmative, purposeful steps designed to encourage infringement, not merely statements that could conceivably lead someone to infringe. Many of Hikma’s challenged statements reflected legal requirements or standard industry practices, while others were omissions or vague references that did not plausibly show an intent to promote infringing use. Because Amarin’s allegations relied on speculation and attenuated chains of inference rather than concrete acts encouraging infringement, the complaint failed to state a claim, and the Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision allowing the suit to proceed.
Support the show

Send us Fan Mail
 A showing of pecuniary loss to investors is not required before the SEC may obtain a disgorgement award.  
Support the show

Send us Fan Mail
Support the show