Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
McIntosh v. United States
- Justices
- CASES BY TERM
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
- Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
- All earlier cases
- HISTORY OF THE COURT
- Recent vacancies
 | |
| McIntosh v. United States | |
| Term: 2023 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: February 27, 2024 Decided: April 17, 2024 | |
| Outcome | |
| affirmed | |
| 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 | |
McIntosh v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 17, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2024.
The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that the forfeiture order against McIntosh could still be ordered. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court.
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- April 17, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judgment.
- February 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- September 29, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- April 24, 2023: Louis McIntosh, the petitioner, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- January 25, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided to vacate Count Two of McIntosh's conviction; reversed the district court's dismissal of Count Five; affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count Six; affirmed the district court's decision on Counts Seven, Eight, Twelve, and Fourteen; vacated the lower court's forfeiture order; and remanded the case.[2]
Background
In August 2013, Louis McIntosh was convicted by a district court jury on multiple robbery and gun charges. While the district court vacated some counts, it imposed a forfeiture order on some of McIntosh's property. McIntosh appealed the decision, citing errors in the district court's opinion, including inconsistent forfeiture amounts.
Following the appeals process, the government submitted a preliminary forfeiture order—two and a half years after McIntosh's initial sentencing. On appeal, McIntosh argued to the district court that the government's delayed submission violated the "as soon as practical after the verdict" standard outlined in Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notably, during the sentencing process, the district court allowed the government an additional week after the initial sentencing to submit the preliminary order, but failed to do so. Both the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected this argument, and upheld the order as submitted.
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[4]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[5]
Outcome
In a 9-0 opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that the time limit as outlined in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32.2 was a time-related directive, and, therefore can be enforced, even if a set deadline has passed. Time-related directives, as explained by the court, are added to encourage public officials to seek an outcome by a certain time. Even if the deadline established by the time-related directive has passed, public officials cannot be striped of their authority to enforce the order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.[6]
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[6]
| “ |
Because Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is a time-related directive that, if missed, does not deprive a district court of its power to order forfeiture, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed. [3] |
” |
| —Justice Sonia Sotomayor | ||
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2023-2024
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. 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.[7]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - McIntosh v. United States (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for McIntosh v. United States
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "LOUIS McINTOSH, Petitioner, against UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, respondent," accessed October 6, 2023
- ↑ Case Text, "United States v. McIntosh," accessed October 6, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued February 27, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued February 27, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "MCINTOSH v. UNITED STATES," accessed April 18, 2024
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
