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 government, represented by Thomas E. Moseley, argues that the time‑honored categorical approach should govern the interpretation of the statute.
According to Government (Mr. Moseley), according to Government (Mr. Moseley), the government also contends that a special interrogatory could be appropriate to establish the tax loss, which it says is an element of the offense.
Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Gannon, argues that the offense involves a prior conviction and that the government must bear the burden of proof to establish the elements in the proceeding.
Background and question before the Court
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced that argument would be heard first in the morning in Nijhawan v. Holder.
Justice Kennedy asked how often juries give special verdicts and whether that has changed after Apprendi.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether extending a lifeline to the government concedes that the loss amount is not an element of the offense.
Justice Alito asked whether there is authority for a trial judge to ask a jury a special interrogatory about immigration status in tax cases.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy noted that multiple defendants might find a special interrogatory unnecessary or inflammatory.
Justice Kennedy asked why the government would be reluctant to use a special interrogatory.
- [1] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 3
- [2] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 5
- [3] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 6
- [4] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 20
- [5] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 20
- [6] d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdf, p. 26
What each side argues
Manjo Nijhawan (Petitioner)
According to Mr. Gannon, petitioner argues that the offense involves a prior conviction and that the government must bear the burden of proof to establish the elements in the proceeding.
Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General (Respondent)
According to Thomas E. Moseley, respondent argues that the categorical approach should be applied to interpret the statute, as Congress required a conviction.
According to Government (Mr. Moseley), according to Government (Mr. Moseley), respondent asserts that a special interrogatory could be used to establish the tax loss, which is an element of the offense.
According to Mr. Moseley, respondent states that Chevron deference does not apply because the issue is part of a federal criminal statute.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the start of argument for Nijhawan v. Holder.
Justices asked several questions about the use of special verdicts, special interrogatories, and the applicability of the categorical approach.
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.
- d11cee95756d861c5a7e-r1-9e21b2335b17ecd7.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.