Ciminelli v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Ciminelli v. United States
Docket number: 21-1170
Term: 2022
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argued: November 28, 2022
Decided: May 11, 2023
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Ciminelli v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 11, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on November 28, 2022. The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the foundation for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes cannot be the right-to-control theory. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the standard of evidence required to convict individuals of federal fraud and bribery. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The question presented: "Whether the Second Circuit's right to control theory of fraud-which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person's economic decision as a species of property fraud-states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343."[2]
  • The outcome: The court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, holding the right-to-control theory cannot be the foundation for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes.[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    See also: Percoco v. United States

    The defendant-appellants in the case are Steven Aiello, Joseph Gerardi, Louis Ciminelli, and Alain Kaloyeros. Aiello and Gerardi owned the construction company COR Development Company. Ciminelli owned construction company LPCiminelli. Kaloyeros was in charge of the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) at the State University of New York (SUNY). Joseph Percoco is the former executive deputy secretary to former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D).[3][4]

    In 2012, Gov. Cuomo launched the Buffalo Billion initiative to invest $1 billion in taxpayer money into developing the greater Buffalo area. In 2017, the defendant-appellants were convicted of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They were convicted of participating in a bid-rigging scheme wherein lobbyist Todd Howe was paid for assistance with obtaining state-funded projects, and then Howe in turn conspired to deliver state contracts to his clients.[3][4]

    On appeal, the defendant-appellants challenged the standard of evidence used in the convictions. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, holding:[4]

    “ We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support each of defendants' convictions, the district court did not err in instructing the jury, it did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence while precluding other evidence, and it did not err in denying Gerardi's motion to dismiss the false statement charge. Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.[5] ”


    Ciminelli appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on February 18, 2022, asking the court to consider whether an individual can be convicted of fraud under the 2nd Circuit's right to control theory of fraud. SCOTUS accepted the case to its merits docket on June 30, 2022.[2][6]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[2]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether the Second Circuit's right to control theory of fraud-which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person's economic decision as a species of property fraud-states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    In a 9-0 opinion, the court reversed/vacated/affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the foundation for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes cannot be the right-to-control theory. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The right-to-control theory cannot be squared with the text of the federal fraud statutes, which are “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Id., at 360. The so-called right to control is not an interest that had “long been recognized as property” when the wire fraud statute was enacted... [B]y treating mere information as the protected interest, the right-to-control theory vastly expands federal jurisdiction to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions traditionally left to State law. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[1]

    “

    Despite indicting, obtaining convictions, and prevailing on appeal based solely on the right-to-control theory, the Government now concedes that the theory as articulated below is erroneous. Brief for United States 24–26. The Government frankly admits that, “to the extent that language in the [Second Circuit’s] opinions might suggest that depriving a victim of economically valuable information, without more, necessarily qualifies as ‘obtaining money or property’ within the meaning of the fraud statutes, that is incorrect.” Id., at 24. That should be the end of the case. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito


    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]


    See also

    Related cases

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 U.S. Supreme Court, "Ciminelli v. United States," May 11, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "21-1170 CIMINELLI V. UNITED STATES QUESTIONS PRESENTED:," June 30, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Percoco v. United States On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit," filed February 17, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, United States v. Percoco, decided September 8, 2021
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Ciminelli v. United States On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit," filed February 18, 2022
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 28, 2022
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 28, 2022
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ciminelli_v._United_States&oldid=9140996"