October Term 2008 · Docket 08-108
Does knowingly use require knowing the owner?
The dispute centers on whether a defendant must know the specific owner of an identification document to commit a federal crime.
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. Russell argued that knowing use implies knowing the specific item.
Justice Alito challenged this view with a hypothetical about a mugger.
Justice Breyer used a Denver ordinance example to test the logic.
Justice Ginsburg noted the government agrees on most elements of the statute.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of a federal identity theft statute. the side that brought the case argues the law requires knowledge of the victim. The government argues the law only requires knowledge of the document itself.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned. the side that brought the case argues the statute requires knowledge of the specific victim.
The government wants the conviction upheld. The government argues the statute only requires knowledge of the document.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
What each side says
the side that brought the case claims common usage implies knowing the specific item and its owner.
The government claims the statute lists specific felonies and does not require victim knowledge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked why the phrase is not less unambiguous.
Justice Alito asked if context changes the meaning of knowing possession.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-7
Why it matters
This case defines the mental state required for federal identity theft. It determines the scope of criminal liability for using identification documents. It affects how prosecutors charge similar offenses nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
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 51-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-7
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 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-23 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
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.