October Term 2009 · Docket 08-1394

Does the honest services fraud statute cover breach of fiduciary duty?

The dispute centers on whether federal law criminalizes a fiduciary's failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

Official caption
Skilling v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Srinivasan argued the Enron collapse impacted the Houston economy.

    Mr. Dreeben stated the government needs proof of a known duty.

    questions_detail

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the scope of the federal honest services fraud statute. It asks if the law covers breaches of fiduciary duty beyond bribery.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case seeks reversal of the fraud conviction.

The government seeks affirmation of the fraud conviction.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the statute does not cover undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The government argues the statute covers any breach of fiduciary duty.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why a fair jury could not be found.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if jurors could fairly evaluate the law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the criminal reach of federal fraud laws. It determines whether fiduciaries face federal prosecution for nondisclosure. This shapes corporate governance and white-collar crime enforcement nationwide.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON