Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

tity  has  been  stolen  or  misappropriated”).  This  helps  ex-
plain  why  the  examples  resulting  from  the  Government’s
theory do not sound like identity theft.  If a lawyer rounds 
up  her  hours  from  2.9  to  3  and  bills  her  client  using  his 
name, the name itself is not specifically a source of fraud; it
only plays an ancillary role in the billing process.  The same 
is  true  for  the  waiter  who  substitutes  one  cut  of  meat  for 
another; we might say the filet mignon’s identity was sto-
len, perhaps, but not the diner’s.

This understanding of identity theft also supports a more 
targeted  definition  of  “uses.”    The  word  “use”  appears  in
these definitions with a specific meaning: Identity theft en-
compasses  when  a  defendant  “uses  the  information  to  de-
ceive others,” Black’s 894 (emphasis added), and “the fraud-
ulent  . . .  use”  of  a  means  of  identification,  Webster’s  xi 
(emphasis added).  In other words, identity theft is commit-
ted when a defendant uses the means of identification itself 
to defraud or deceive.  This tracks the Sixth Circuit’s heu-
ristic.  When a means of identification is used deceptively,
this  deception  goes  to  “who”  is  involved,  rather  than  just 
“how” or “when” services were provided.  Use of the means 
of  identification  would  therefore  be  at  “the  locus  of  [the
criminal]  undertaking,”  rather  than  merely  “passive,” 
“passing,” or ancillary employment in a crime.  Jones, 529 
U. S., at 855–856. 

On top of that, §1028A’s title is not just “identity theft,” 
but  “Aggravated  identity  theft.”   Typically,  “[a]n  ‘aggra-
vated’ offense is one ‘made worse or more serious by circum-
stances such as violence, the presence of a deadly weapon, 
or  the  intent  to  commit  another  crime.’ ”    Carachuri-
Rosendo  v.  Holder,  560  U. S.  563,  574  (2010)  (quoting 
Black’s  Law  Dictionary  75  (9th  ed.  2009)).    This  suggests
that  Congress  had  in  mind  a  particularly  serious  form  of 
identity theft.  Yet the Government’s reading “would apply 
an  ‘aggravated’  . . .  label”  to  all  manner  of  everyday  over-
billing offenses.  Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U. S., at 574.  “Of