Hubbard v. United States
514 U.S. 695, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 3184, 115 S. Ct. 1754 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which criminalizes false statements made "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States," does not apply to false statements made in federal judicial proceedings, as federal courts are not considered "departments" or "agencies" under the statute.
Facts:
- In 1985, John H. Yellin filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.
- In the course of the bankruptcy proceedings, the trustee filed an amended complaint and a motion to compel Yellin to surrender certain business records.
- Yellin opposed the relief sought by the trustee by filing two unsworn, written responses with the Bankruptcy Court.
- Yellin's answer to the trustee’s complaint falsely denied the trustee’s allegations that a well-drilling machine and parts were stored at his home and in a nearby warehouse.
- Yellin’s response to the trustee’s discovery motion incorrectly stated that he had already turned over all of the requested records.
Procedural Posture:
- John H. Yellin was charged with three counts of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- The District Court instructed the jury that a bankruptcy court is a "department... of the United States" within the meaning of § 1001, and the jury subsequently convicted Yellin on all three § 1001 counts.
- Yellin appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that they were barred by the 'judicial function exception.'
- The Court of Appeals affirmed Yellin’s convictions, concluding, over a dissent, that the judicial function exception does not exist, which created a split in the Circuits.
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 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which penalizes false statements made "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States," apply to false statements made in federal judicial proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 does not apply to false statements made in federal judicial proceedings because a federal court is neither a 'department' nor an 'agency' of the United States within the meaning of the statute. The Court concluded that its prior decision in United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955), which had broadly interpreted 'department' to include all three branches of government, was seriously flawed. The Bramblett Court gave insufficient weight to the plain language of § 1001 and the statutory definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 6, which presumptively define 'department' as an executive department and generally exclude courts from the definition of 'agency.' The Court found no sufficient 'context' in § 1001 or related legislation to override these presumptive definitions. The Court decided to overrule Bramblett primarily due to two factors: the unusual 'intervening development of the law' demonstrated by the widespread adoption of a 'judicial function exception' by lower federal courts, which effectively limited § 1001's application in the Judiciary for over 30 years, and the absence of significant reliance interests on Bramblett by prosecutors, who were already directed by the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual to use other statutes for litigation misconduct.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Yes, I concur in the judgment that United States v. Bramblett should be overruled and that § 1001 does not apply to the courts. While respecting stare decisis, I believe Bramblett has created unacceptable consequences that can only be avoided by overruling it. I disagree with the majority's reasoning that the lower courts' 'judicial function exception' constitutes an 'intervening development of the law' justifying an overruling. Instead, the widespread attempts by so many Courts of Appeals to limit Bramblett simply demonstrates the great 'mischief' and potential for deterring vigorous representation in adversarial litigation, particularly for criminal defendants, that Bramblett's mistaken reading of § 1001 created. Overruling Bramblett is more principled than inventing statutory exceptions or creating an illogical interpretation of 'department' that excludes the Judiciary but includes the Legislature.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the Court should not overrule United States v. Bramblett and should uphold the petitioner's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The majority jettisons a 40-year-old unanimous precedent despite acknowledging Bramblett's interpretation was 'not completely implausible,' thereby disrespecting the traditionally stringent adherence to stare decisis in statutory decisions. The dissent argues that the 'intervening development of the law' exception to stare decisis applies to this Court's own precedents, not lower federal courts' decisions, and using lower court decisions to overrule Supreme Court precedent subverts the hierarchical court system. Furthermore, the dissent disputes the claim of 'no significant reliance interests,' arguing that the Government's preference for alternative statutes is a defensive litigation strategy adopted in response to the uncertain 'judicial function exception' in lower courts, not a true lack of reliance. Many convictions have been secured under § 1001, and Congress has not acted to change the statute in the 40 years since Bramblett.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant clarification of the jurisdictional scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, definitively excluding federal courts from its reach. It illustrates the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule prior statutory interpretations, particularly when the original ruling is perceived as textually flawed and has led to inconsistent application through judge-made exceptions in lower courts, or when reliance interests are minimal. The ruling reinforces a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, emphasizing the plain meaning of words and specific statutory definitions over potentially ambiguous historical analyses. This decision ensures that misconduct in federal judicial proceedings will be prosecuted under more specific statutes, such as perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), rather than the general false statements statute, thereby promoting clarity and consistency in criminal enforcement.
