The question
Whether a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred, or may instead be tried in the district where the investigation was located.
Abouammo v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. 1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred, and reversed the Ninth Circuit. The only prohibited act under the statute is falsifying a document with obstructive intent, so venue lies where that act took place, which here was Seattle. The statute's intent-to-obstruct provision is a mens rea element and does not shift venue to where the investigation sat.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Kagan, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The Constitution requires that a crime be tried where it was committed, and courts locate an offense by its essential conduct elements. The only conduct 18 U.S.C. 1519 proscribes is falsifying a document; once a person falsifies with the requisite intent, nothing more is needed to violate the law, so venue lies where the falsification occurred. The statute's intent-to-obstruct requirement is a mens rea element, and the Court has never looked to mens rea in fixing venue. A falsification with obstructive intent occurs in the same place as one without it, so the intent provision adds nothing to the conduct-focused analysis. The obstructive effects of the false invoice were not elements of the crime and cannot ground venue where the investigation sat.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. 1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred.
Source: syllabus, Held
The only conduct 18 U.S.C. 1519 proscribes is falsification of a document, and no further act is needed to violate the statute.
Source: syllabus, Held
The statute's intent-to-obstruct requirement is a mens rea element, which the Court has never used to determine venue.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Ninth Circuit had treated the contemplated effects of the falsification as essential conduct elements, and the Court rejected that view.
Source: syllabus, Held
Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Source: syllabus, lineup