October Term 2003 · Docket 03-44
Does federal fraud law require a link to federal funds?
The dispute centers on whether federal fraud statutes demand proof that local crimes connect to federal spending.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Dreeben argued the lower court was correct. He stated the statute does not require a federal connection. He emphasized the text of the law.
Mr. Birrell argued the statute is unconstitutional. He claimed it allows conviction without a federal element. He stated the law omits a constitutional requirement.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked for the basis of the government's claim. He then submitted the case for decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 46-2 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 46-2
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal fraud laws. It asks if prosecutors must prove a direct link between local crimes and federal money.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 3, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
What each side wants
The government wants to convict based on local conduct alone. It argues the statute text controls the scope.
the side that brought the case wants the statute struck down. It argues the law fails constitutional requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
What each side says
The government argues the statute does not require a federal link. It claims the text defines the offense limits.
the side that brought the case argues the statute is facially unconstitutional. It claims the law omits a required constitutional element.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked for the basis of the government's position. He then closed the argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 46-2 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 46-2
Why it matters
This case defines the reach of federal fraud laws. It determines whether local crimes become federal offenses. It shapes the boundary between state and federal power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 46-2 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 46-2
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-36
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.