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
According to Srinivasan, the case concerns whether a person who uses a telephone to purchase drugs for personal use falls within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 843(b).
According to Srinivasan, the petitioner argues that the buyer/seller principle excludes buyers from liability under the statute.
The government argues that such conduct should be covered by the statute by treating it as facilitating the dealer's felony.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the central question is how to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 843(b) with respect to the buyer/seller rule and the use of a telephone in drug transactions.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Salman Khade Abuelhawwa)
The petitioner argues that a person who uses a telephone to buy drugs for personal use is not covered by 843(b) because the buyer/seller principle excludes buyers.
Respondent (United States)
According to Government, the United States argues that the conduct should be covered by the statute by treating it as facilitating the dealer's felony, despite Congress’ exclusion.
What happened at oral argument
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Can you be specific about who those persons would be? You say not a misdemeanant drug user. So who would be caught in the 843(b)?
According to Justice Ginsburg, jUSTICE GINSBURG: That was changed in 1970, wasn't it? Wasn't the text "offense" originally, and then Congress changed it to "felony"?
According to Justice Ginsburg, jUSTICE GINSBURG: And it may be that in certain States voting rights are removed, and there is on this person's record forever that he is a felon.
JUSTICE BREYER: Is there another example in the law, anywhere in the law, where -- and there may be, I'm asking -- which you've come across, where we have an illegal business and there is a customer; and all the customer does is be a customer; and is there an example where just because he's a customer in a statutory provision that normally has a lesser penalty -- all right; imagine those circumstances -- you still can punish him as if he -- as if he ran the business?
According to Justice Ginsburg, jUSTICE GINSBURG: What about the -- the statement that in the manual -- maybe this is incorrect -- but that the charging policy of the Department of Justice instructs prosecutors to charge the most serious offense supported by the facts? And if that's true, then the Assistant U.S. Attorney would have no choice. The most serious offense is not misdemeanor simple possession, but it is the violation of 843(b).
According to Justice Alito, jUSTICE ALITO: The buyer/seller rule would apply in your view in exactly the same way.
- [1] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 36
- [4] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 38
- [5] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 39d086658adc5b0a70f6-r1-0a9a0c68880603e2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.