Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Dubin v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Dubin v. United States
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: February 27, 2023
Decided: June 8, 2023
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Neil Gorsuch

Dubin v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 8, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on February 27, 2023.

In a unanimous ruling, the court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) a defendant commits aggravated identity theft when their use of another person's identification to commit predicate offenses is what makes the actions criminal.[1] Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion.[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the legal standard to prove aggravated identity theft, and a Medicaid fraud claim. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "The question presented is whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time he mentions or otherwise recites someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for overbilling Medicaid for services provided to Patient L. The U.S. government also indicted Dubin for aggravated identity theft because he used Patient L's identifying information on the Medicaid claim form. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas accepted the identity theft claim. Dubin appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and the court affirmed the district court ruling, holding that anytime an individual uses someone else's name as part of a predicate crime—meaning a component of a larger crime—even when that individual is authorized to use the name and the predicate offense does not misrepresent the person's identity, the individual is guilty of aggravated identity theft.[3][4][5]

    Dubin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022, asking the court whether the Fifth Circuit erred in its standard for aggravated identity theft.[3]

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit opinion

    On March 3, 2022, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas' ruling, holding that Dubin's conviction was valid, regardless of the standard of review used by the district court. In a per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit held:[4]

    “ William Joseph Dubin and his son David Fox Dubin were convicted of several offenses related to Medicaid fraud. They appealed, and a panel of this court affirmed the district court's judgment.


    The court granted rehearing en banc to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support David Dubin's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). We now affirm the district court's judgment for the reasons set forth in the panel's majority opinion.

    We need not resolve whether our review of the § 1028A issue is de novo or for plain error because the conviction stands regardless of which standard of review applies.

    Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.[6]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “ The question presented is whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time he mentions or otherwise recites someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.[6] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    On June 8, 2023, the court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings in a unanimous opinion, holding that under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) a defendant commits aggravated identity theft when their use of another person's identification to commit predicate offenses is what makes the actions criminal.[9] Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion.[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “ There is no dispute that petitioner David Fox Dubin overbilled Medicaid for psychological testing. The question is whether, in defrauding Medicaid, he also committed “[a]ggravated identity theft,” 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1), triggering a mandatory 2-year prison sentence. The Fifth Circuit found that he did, based on a reading of the statute that covers defendants who fraudulently inflate the price of a service or good they actually provided. On that sweeping reading, as long as a billing or payment method employs another person’s name or other identifying information, that is enough. A lawyer who rounds up her hours from 2.9 to 3 and bills her client electronically has committed aggravated identity theft. The same is true of a waiter who serves flank steak but charges for filet mignon using an electronic payment method.


    The text and context of the statute do not support such a boundless interpretation. Instead, §1028A(a)(1) is violated when the defendant’s misuse of another person’s means of identification is at the crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal, rather than merely an ancillary feature of a billing method. Here, the crux of petitioner’s overbilling was inflating the value of services actually provided, while the patient’s means of identification was an ancillary part of the Medicaid billing process. ...

    Because petitioner did not use the patient’s means of identification in relation to a predicate offense within the meaning of §1028A(a)(1), the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “ Whoever among you is not an “aggravated identity thief,” let him cast the first stone. The United States came to this Court with a view of 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) that would affix that unfortunate label on almost every adult American. Every bill splitter who has overcharged a friend using a mobile-payment service like Venmo. Every contractor who has rounded up his billed time by even a few minutes. Every college hopeful who has overstated his involvement in the high school glee club. All of those individuals, the United States says, engage in conduct that can invite a mandatory 2-year stint in federal prison. The Court today rightly rejects that unserious position. But in so holding, I worry the Court has stumbled upon a more fundamental problem with §1028A(a)(1). That provision is not much better than a Rorschach test. Depending on how you squint your eyes, you can stretch (or shrink) its meaning to convict (or exonerate) just about anyone. Doubtless, creative prosecutors and receptive judges can do the same. Truly, the statute fails to provide even rudimentary notice of what it does and does not criminalize. We have a term for laws like that. We call them vague. And “[i]n our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.” United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 1).


    I do not write this opinion as wishcasting. Perhaps, by applying the Court’s “crux” test, lower courts will achieve a consistency that has, to date, eluded them. Or perhaps they will, prompted by today’s decision, locate a previously unseen path through this statutory quagmire. But I would not hold my breath. Section 1028A(a)(1) simply does too little to specify which individuals deserve the inglorious title of “aggravated identity thief.” That is a problem Congress alone can fix. Until it does, I fear the issues that have long plagued lower courts will persist. And I will not be surprised if someday, maybe someday soon, they find their way back here.[6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    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.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 1028A - Aggravated identity theft," accessed June 8, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Dubin v. United States, decided June 8, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Supreme Court, "Dubin v. United States, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit," filed June 30, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, United States v. Dubin, decided March 3, 2022
    5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices will review scope of identity theft in case involving Medicaid fraud," November 10, 2022
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ [Oral argument audio page URL Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 27, 2023]
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 27, 2023
    9. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 1028A - Aggravated identity theft," accessed June 8, 2023
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dubin_v._United_States&oldid=9152774"