Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 26

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

 GORSUCH, J., concurring
GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–10 
_________________ 

DAVID FOX DUBIN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 8, 2023]

 JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in the judgment. 
Whoever among you is not an “aggravated identity thief,” 
let him cast the first stone.  The United States came to this 
Court  with  a  view  of  18  U. S. C.  §1028A(a)(1)  that  would 
affix that unfortunate  label on almost every  adult Ameri-
can.  Every bill splitter who has overcharged a friend using 
a  mobile-payment  service  like  Venmo.    Every  contractor
who has rounded up his billed time by even a few minutes. 
Every college hopeful who has overstated his involvement 
in  the  high  school  glee  club.    All of  those  individuals,  the 
United  States  says,  engage  in  conduct  that  can  invite  a 
mandatory 2-year stint in federal prison.  The Court today 
rightly rejects that unserious position.  But in so holding, I 
worry  the  Court  has  stumbled  upon  a  more  fundamental 
problem with §1028A(a)(1).  That provision is not much bet-
ter than a  Rorschach test.  Depending on how you squint 
your eyes, you can stretch (or shrink) its meaning to convict 
(or exonerate) just about anyone.  Doubtless, creative pros-
ecutors and receptive judges can do the same.  Truly, the 
statute fails to provide even rudimentary notice of what it 
does and does not criminalize.  We have a term for laws like 
that.  We call them vague.  And “[i]n our constitutional or-
der, a vague law is no law at all.”  United States v. Davis, 
588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 1). 

The “[a]ggravated identity theft” statute stipulates that 
“[w]hoever, during and in relation to any felony violation”