October Term 2005 · Docket 04-433
Can a competitor sue for RICO damages based on a rival's tax fraud?
Ideal Steel argues Anza suffered direct harm from tax evasion. Anza claims the Second Circuit wrongly expanded RICO liability.
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
David Frederick argued tax fraud is not a valid RICO predicate. He stated the case concerns underpayment of taxes.
Justice Roberts asked if illicit proceeds reinvested in a facility satisfy RICO elements.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the plaintiff could rely on New York State proceedings.
Justice Kennedy questioned the validity of the opposing side's core legal premise.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of civil RICO claims. It asks if a competitor can sue a rival for tax fraud. The dispute centers on standing and causation under federal law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 27, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
Anza wants the Court to reverse the Second Circuit. It seeks to dismiss the RICO claim entirely.
Ideal Steel wants the Court to affirm the Second Circuit. It seeks to proceed to trial in New York.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What each side says
Anza argues tax fraud does not harm competitors directly. It claims RICO requires a direct line of causation.
Ideal Steel argues tax fraud creates an unfair market advantage. It claims this directly harms rival businesses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if every competitor of a tax cheat has a RICO claim.
Justice Souter asked if this case differs from Holmes regarding direct causation lines.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
Why it matters
This case defines who can sue under RICO. It determines if tax fraud creates civil liability for competitors. It shapes the scope of federal racketeering law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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 10, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 5-17 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 5-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 41-5 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 41-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 29-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 29-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-45 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-45
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 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 39-33 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 39-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-1
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.