Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

16 

MASLENJAK v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

reasonable  official  to  make  some  further  investigation
(say,  into  the  circumstances  of  her  admission),  (2)  that
inquiry  would  predictably  have  yielded  a  legal  basis  for 
rejecting  her  citizenship  application,  and  (3)  Maslenjak 
failed  to  show  that  (notwithstanding  such  an  objective
likelihood)  she  was  in  fact  qualified  to  become  a  U. S. 
citizen.  See supra, at 12–15.  This jury, however, was not 
asked  to—and  so  did  not—make  any  of  those  determina-
tions.  Accordingly,  Maslenjak  was  not  convicted  by  a 
properly  instructed  jury  of  “procur[ing],  contrary  to  law, 
[her] naturalization.”

The Government asserts that any instructional error in 
this  case  was  harmless.  “Had  officials  known  the  truth,” 
the  Government  asserts,  “it  would  have  affected  their 
decision to grant [Maslenjak] citizenship.”  Brief for United 
States  12.    Unsurprisingly,  Maslenjak  disagrees.    See 
Tr. of Oral Arg. 6–8; Reply to Brief in Opposition 9–10.  In 
keeping with our usual practice, we leave that dispute for 
resolution on remand.  See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 
561 U. S. 358, 414 (2010).

For  the  reasons  stated,  we  vacate  the  judgment  of  the
Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceed-
ings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.