October Term 2008 · Docket 08-495
Does a fraud conviction require proof of specific loss amounts for deportation?
The dispute centers on whether federal fraud statutes require juries to find specific monetary losses to trigger deportation.
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
Justice Souter noted the answers to prior questions seemed identical.
Justice Kennedy inquired about the frequency of special jury verdicts in fraud cases.
Justice Ginsburg asked how many defendants in the case were non-citizens.
Justice Alito questioned if the government conceded loss amounts are not elements.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests how courts interpret federal fraud laws for immigration purposes. the side that brought the case argues the law requires specific loss findings. The government argues general fraud convictions suffice. The outcome affects how many non-citizens face removal after fraud convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 27, 2009.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to require specific loss findings for deportation.
The government wants the Court to accept general fraud convictions for deportation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute demands proof of specific monetary losses.
The government argues the statute covers all federal fraud prosecutions broadly.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
What the justices asked
Justice Souter questioned whether the legal answers differed in this specific case.
Justice Kennedy asked if jury verdicts referencing amounts over ten thousand dollars satisfy the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-27
Why it matters
This interpretation determines the scope of federal fraud laws. It defines which convictions trigger mandatory deportation. It shapes the relationship between criminal law and immigration enforcement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
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 11-19 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 51-39 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 51-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 15-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 15-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 19-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 19-27
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 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-25
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.