2008 Supreme Court term

EDMUND BOYLE v. UNITED STATES.

Dockets 07-1309Argued
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

The case was heard on oral argument before the Supreme Court at 11:16 a.m.

According to Marc Fernich, the petitioner argues that a defendant has a right to an independent jury determination of each essential element of a RICO offense, including the pattern and a separate enterprise.

According to Mr. Fernich, the petitioner also contends that an enterprise should be distinguished as a long‑term, goal‑directed decision‑making apparatus that continues between predicate acts.

According to Mr. Yang, the respondent argues that an association‑in‑fact enterprise can exist for wholly criminal acts, as clarified in Turkette.

Background and question before the Court

According to Justice Scalia, the Court is considering whether an association‑in‑fact enterprise under RICO must have an ascertainable structure beyond the commission of predicate crimes.

According to Justice Kennedy, the Court is also examining what the term “enterprise” means beyond the language of the statute.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Edmund Boyle)

According to Marc Fernich, the petitioner asserts a right to an independent jury determination of each essential element of a RICO offense, including the pattern and a separate enterprise.

According to Mr. Fernich, the petitioner argues that an enterprise should be viewed as a long‑term, goal‑directed decision‑making apparatus that persists between predicate acts.

Respondent (United States)

According to Mr. Yang, the respondent contends that an association‑in‑fact enterprise can exist for wholly criminal acts, as explained in Turkette.

What happened at oral argument

Oral argument began at 11:16 a.m. before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Fernich presented arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Yang argued on behalf of the respondent.

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.

  • 77090ce51aba16be0608-r1-edd2db58f97f59fa.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.