Flores-Figueroa v. United States
556 U.S. 646 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), requires the government to prove that a defendant knew the means of identification they unlawfully used belonged to another actual person.
Facts:
- Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a citizen of Mexico, sought employment in the United States in 2000.
- To secure employment, Flores-Figueroa gave his employer a counterfeit alien registration card and Social Security card with a false name, birth date, and numbers that did not belong to any real person.
- In 2006, Flores-Figueroa presented his employer with new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards which used his real name.
- The numbers on the 2006 documents, unlike the previous ones, were in fact assigned to other, real people.
- The employer reported Flores-Figueroa to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which discovered the numbers belonged to other individuals.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Flores-Figueroa in a federal district court with predicate offenses and two counts of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
- Flores-Figueroa moved for a judgment of acquittal on the aggravated identity theft counts, arguing the government failed to prove he knew the identification numbers belonged to other people.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, denied the motion, holding that such proof was not required by the statute.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Flores-Figueroa guilty on all counts.
- Flores-Figueroa (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction, siding with the United States (appellee).
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the statute's knowledge requirement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), require the government to prove that a defendant knew the means of identification they unlawfully used actually belonged to another person?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes. The statute requires the government to prove the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person. Ordinary English grammar suggests that the adverb 'knowingly' modifies all subsequent elements of the crime, including the phrase 'of another person.' This interpretation is consistent with Court precedent, such as in Liparota v. United States and United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., which applies a statute's mens rea requirement to all of its material elements. The government's arguments regarding legislative history and potential enforcement difficulties are not persuasive enough to overcome the plain meaning of the statute's text. To hold otherwise would criminalize conduct based on an offender's ignorance of a key fact, which Congress did not intend.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes. The judgment should be reversed based on the statute's clear text alone. Ordinary English usage dictates that 'knowingly' modifies the entire object of the verb, which includes the phrase 'of another person.' However, the Court's reliance on a general interpretive canon that 'knowingly' applies to each element is questionable, as is its venture into inconclusive legislative history. The text is sufficient to resolve the case without resorting to these other analytical tools.
Concurring - Justice Alito
Yes. While the majority's conclusion is correct, its opinion may be read as adopting an overly rigid grammatical rule. Context is crucial, and there are criminal statutes where a mens rea term does not apply to every element. However, in this case, the government's interpretation must be rejected because it leads to 'exceedingly odd results' where a defendant's liability for a two-year mandatory sentence depends entirely on the chance of whether a made-up number happens to belong to a real person. Since the government has not pointed to any contextual features to support such a result, the knowledge requirement must apply to the 'of another person' element.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scienter (knowledge) requirement for the crime of aggravated identity theft, increasing the prosecutorial burden. By applying the term 'knowingly' to the 'of another person' element, the Court prevents convictions based on a defendant's inadvertence or mistake of fact. The ruling reinforces a textualist approach, affirming the general presumption that a stated mens rea in a criminal statute applies to all material elements of the offense unless Congress explicitly states otherwise. This holding protects defendants from receiving a harsh mandatory sentence based on the pure chance that a fake ID they used happened to be linked to a real person.
