Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

DUBIN v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

underlying offenses that do not impose any mandatory prison sentence 
at all.  The Government’s reading, however, does not meaningfully dis-
tinguish  between  the  aggravated  identity  theft  crime  that  Congress
singled out for heightened punishment and other crimes.  Instead, so 
long as the criteria for the broad predicate offenses are met, a defend-
ant  faces  an  automatic  2-year  sentence  for  generic  overbilling  that 
happens to use names or other means of identification for routine bill-
ing and payment.  A far more sensible conclusion from the statutory
structure is that §1028A(a)(1)’s enhancement targets situations where
the means of identification itself is at the crux of the underlying crim-
inality, not just an ancillary billing feature.  Pp. 15–17.

(e) In contrast to the staggering breadth of the Government’s read-
ing of §1028A, this Court has “ ‘traditionally exercised restraint in as-
sessing the reach of a federal criminal statute,’ ” Marinello v. United 
States, 584 U. S. ___, ___, and prudently avoided reading incongruous 
breadth into opaque language in criminal statutes.  See, e.g., Van Bu-
ren  v.  United  States,  593  U. S.  ___.    The  vast  sweep  of  the  Govern-
ment’s  reading—under  which  everyday  overbilling  cases  would  ac-
count for the majority of violations—“underscores the implausibility of
the Government’s interpretation.”  Id., at ___.  While the Government 
represents  that  prosecutors  will  act  responsibly  in  charging  defend-
ants under its sweeping reading, this Court “cannot construe a crimi-
nal statute on the assumption that the Government will ‘use it respon-
sibly.’ ”  McDonnell, 579 U. S., at 576.  Pp. 17–19. 

27 F. 4th 1021, vacated and remanded.

 SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, 
JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.