Coalition letter to members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees regarding proposed reforms to federal forfeiture law.

Brief of Amici Curiae the Cato Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and Due Process Institute in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: The Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts to apply the federal criminal property fraud statutes beyond their clearly intended and expressed scope. Applying the federal criminal property fraud statutes to breaches of contractual provisions like the DBE requirement would violate the fundamental principles regarding notice, federalism, and avoiding overcriminalization that motivate the Supreme Court’s decisions.

Letter to members of Congress regarding much-needed reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture laws, as addressed in the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act of 2015 (H.R. 540/S. 255)

Letter to members of Congress regarding much-needed reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture law as addressed in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 5212).

Immediate Past President and Legislative Committee Chair Gerald Lefcourt's statement to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee regarding federalism and crime control.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Stanford Law School Justice Advocacy Project in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: Rehearing en banc is warranted because the application of Proposition 47 to federal anti-recidivism statutes is an important and recurring issue. Proposition 47 embodies the will of California voters to decrease both direct and indirect penalties for minor drug possession and to reduce prison populations. The concerns animating Proposition 47 also apply at the federal level. Rehearing en banc is warranted because the panel decision is incorrect and conflicts with circuit precedent.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner and Urging Reversal.

Argument: The lower courts’ interpretation of "official act" violates principles that limit the scope of broadly worded federal criminal statutes. The statutes at issue are impermissibly vague if they cannot be construed to limit the scope of "official act."

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Argument: The Court should grant the writ to reinforce key principles that restrain expansive interpretations of broadly worded federal criminal statutes. The Court should grant the writ to protect the Sixth Amendment right to an unbiased jury.

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Innocence Network, and Innocence Project in Support of Appellant and Reversal. 

Argument: The district court's decision unfairly deprives wrongfully convicted individuals of the opportunity to pursue much-needed compensation and improperly immunizes municipalities for district attorneys' misconduct. The district court's decision ignores New York State policy to deter municipalities from violating criminal defendants' constitutional rights.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioner.

Argument: The federal “honest services” fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1346, raises critical constitutional concerns in that it (i) is unconstitutionally vague and fails to provide the degree of fair warning of its scope or meaning, as required by the Due Process Clause, and (ii) invades a regulatory area constitutionally committed to the states under the doctrine of federalism.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the New York Council of Defense Lawyers in support of petitioners.

Argument: Section 1346 violates due process requirements by (i) not providing fair warning, at the time of the offense, of what conduct is prohibited, and (ii) failing to be clear and specific enough to inform the public of precisely what conduct is prohibited and cabining law enforcement’s discretion within reasonable limits. In addition, interpretation of Section 1346 to impose a federal-law duty to provide “honest services” irrespective of state law would invite federal courts to create a federal common law of honest dealing, an approach which has been anathema for two centuries. The Seventh Circuit’s forfeiture rule would unfairly compel defendants either to accept prejudicial interrogatories or to forfeit objections to prejudicial instructional error.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Cato Institute in support of petitioner and urging reversal.

Argument: This Court has repeatedly applied the rule of lenity and other tools of statutory interpretation to limit prosecutors’ expansive applications of federal criminal statutes. This Court has required a clear statement from Congress before it will interpret a federal criminal statute to shift the federal-state balance in law enforcement. This case implicates the concerns that have caused this Court to interpret criminal statutes narrowly.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Urging Reversal.

Argument: The District Court’s “Official Act” instruction improperly altered the federal-state balance without a clear statement from Congress. Ambiguous criminal provisions must be interpreted strictly against the government.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: A Hobbs Act conspiracy charge requires proof of an agreement to obtain property from a third party. The unambiguous meaning of the text enacted by Congress delineates the outer bounds of the Hobbs Act offense. The Court should not construe the Hobbs Act to intrude upon areas traditionally reserved to state law.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner and Urging Reversal.

Argument: The Court should reverse the court of appeals' decision and reinforce the principle that, no matter how culpable the defendant's behavior, a conviction may only be obtained under a statute that clearly encompasses the conduct at issue. In addition to the rules of statutory interpretation urged in petitioner's brief, the Court should interpret § 1344(1) in light of the principle that "unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance." To the extent ambiguity remains after the Court has interpreted the statute, "the tie must go to the defendant" under the rule of lenity.