2004 Supreme Court term

DAVID WHITFIELD v. UNITED STATES

Dockets 03-1293Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Petitioners argue that Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) solely to increase penalties for money‑laundering conspiracies.

Petitioners contend that the venue provision in 18 U.S.C. 1956(i) is the exclusive venue provision for money‑laundering offenses.

Petitioners argue that, because before the enactment of § 1956(h) the government had to prosecute money‑laundering conspiracies under § 371 for six years, Congress intended to carry forward the overt‑act requirement of § 371 into the money‑laundering conspiracy offense.

Background and question before the Court

Justice Stevens asked whether the government had to prove an overt act to establish venue.

Justice Scalia asked whether the venue provision was the only basis for venue.

Justice Scalia later asked whether, when multiple objects are involved, the government should charge both under § 371 and under § 1956.

What each side argues

Petitioners’ Position

According to Petitioners, congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) for the sole purpose of increasing the penalties for money‑laundering conspiracies.

According to Petitioners, the venue provision in 18 U.S.C. 1956(i) is the exclusive venue provision for money‑laundering.

According to Petitioners, because before § 1956(h) the government had to prosecute money‑laundering conspiracies under § 371 for six years, the Court should presume that Congress intended to perpetuate the overt‑act requirement of § 371 into the money‑laundering conspiracy offense.

Respondent’s Position

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Oral argument began at 10:09 a.m. before the Supreme Court.

The respondent was represented by Jonathan L. Marcus during oral argument.

The case was submitted at 10:49 a.m.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • a716aec9437c70d14216-r1-a1e6cbfa4ff34a8f.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.