Features
Harry Sandick
&
Caitlyn Wigler
On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court endorsed the “fraudulent inducement” theory of wire fraud in Kousisis v. United States, departing from its recent trend of narrowing the scope of broadly worded criminal statutes, including the wire fraud statute. This decision appears to allow the government to obtain a conviction even where the defendant did not intend to cause economic harm to their counterparty, so long as the defendant made material false statements in order to obtain property from another.
Features
Elkan Abramowitz
&
Jonathan Sack
This article describes the prosecution in Thompson, then turns to the Supreme Court’s rejection of the government’s contention that 18 U.S.C. §1014 criminalizes misleading as well as false statements.
Features
Harry Sandick
&
Caitlyn Wigler
A follow up to the article on a briefing in 'Kousisis v. United States' before the U.S. Supreme Court that considers the viability of the fraudulent inducement theory. Arguments before the Court took place on Dec. 9, and the authors provide an update.
Features
Catherine Nyarady
&
Crystal Parker
In February 2024, the Fourth Circuit addressed a jury’s 2020 damages award of $1 billion finding Cox secondarily liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement through illegal copying of copyrighted songs. Both Cox and Sony filed petitions for certiorari.
Features
Harry Sandick
&
Caitlyn Wigler
On Dec. 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kousisis v. United States, a case that will again review the reach of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. At issue this time is the so-called “fraudulent inducement” theory of property fraud — namely, whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if the infliction of economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Features
Bonnie M. Baker
The Supreme Court held that expert testimony in a criminal case, as to whether "most people" similar to the defendant have a particular mental state, does not run afoul of the Federal Rule of Evidence's prohibition against expert opinion evidence about whether a criminal defendant had or lacked the mental state required for conviction. Particularly in white-collar cases, where the defendant's intent is often the central disputed issue, the implications of Diaz may be far-reaching.
Features
Mark Grafton
The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado will cause many local governments to revisit the defensibility of their impact fee regimes.
Features
David Casazza, Elizabeth Kiernan
&
Addison Bennett
The Supreme Court's holding ensures that insurers who have long been silenced in Chapter 11 proceedings will now be heard. It is also a shot across the bow for two other judge-made, atextual doctrines that bar consideration of the merits in Chapter 11 appeals.
Features
Jimmy Hoover
A new appeal landed at the U.S. Supreme Court with potentially billions of dollars at stake for the music, movie and Internet industries. The question presented is whether internet service providers such as Cox Communications, AT&T and Comcast should be held liable for the copyright infringement committed by their users.
Features
Peter Brown
The court's unwillingness to issue a final decision at this early stage indicates how much is at stake for social media moderation of users' postings. The outcome could set a crucial precedent affecting the regulation of content on social media platforms, influencing how these entities manage user-generated content and exercise their editorial discretion.
