Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-309_h31i.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

newly naturalized Maslenjak attempted to prevent Ratko’s 
deportation.  During proceedings on that matter, Maslen-
jak  admitted  she  had  known  all  along  that  Ratko  spent 
the  war  years  not  secreted  in  Serbia  but  fighting  in 
Bosnia. 

As  a  result,  the  Government  charged  Maslenjak  with
knowingly  “procur[ing],  contrary  to  law,  [her]  naturaliza-
tion,” in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1425(a).  According to the
Government’s  theory,  Maslenjak  violated  §1425(a)  be-
cause,  in  the  course  of  procuring  her  naturalization,  she 
broke  another  law:  18  U. S. C.  §1015(a),  which  prohibits
knowingly making a false statement under oath in a natu-
ralization  proceeding.  The  false  statements  the  Govern-
ment  invoked  were  Maslenjak’s  answers  to  questions  23
and 24 on the citizenship application (stating that she had 
not  lied  in  seeking  refugee  status)  and  her  corresponding 
statements  in  the  citizenship  interview.  Those  state-
ments, the Government argued to the District Court, need
not have affected the  naturalization decision to support  a 
conviction  under  §1425(a). 
The  court  agreed:  Over
Maslenjak’s objection, it instructed the jury that a convic-
tion was proper so long as the Government “prove[d] that
one  of  the  defendant’s  statements  was  false”—even  if  the 
statement  was  not  “material”  and  “did  not  influence  the 
decision to approve [her] naturalization.”  App. to Pet. for 
Cert.  86a.  The  jury  returned  a  guilty  verdict;  and  the
District  Court,  based  on  that  finding,  stripped  Maslenjak 
of her citizenship.  See 8 U. S. C. §1451(e). 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirmed  the  conviction.  As  relevant  here,  the  Sixth  Cir-
cuit  upheld  the  District  Court’s  instructions  that  Maslen-
jak’s  false  statements  need  not  have  influenced  the  natu-
ralization  decision. 
If,  the  Court  of  Appeals  held,
Maslenjak  made  false  statements  violating  §1015(a)  and 
she  procured  naturalization,  then  she  also  violated 
§1425(a)—irrespective  of  whether  the  false  statements