Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 8

4 

DUBIN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

Many lower courts have responded to such prosecutions 
with  more  restrained  readings  of  the  aggravated  identity
theft  statute.2    The  Fifth  Circuit  did  not.    To  resolve  the 
conflict in the courts below, this Court granted certiorari,
598 U. S. ___ (2022), and now vacates the judgment of the
Fifth Circuit and remands.3 

II 
A 
This case turns on two of §1028A(a)(1)’s elements.  Of the 
various  possible  ways  to  violate  §1028A(a)(1),  petitioner
was convicted for “us[ing]” a patient’s means of identifica-
tion “in relation to” healthcare fraud.  The parties offer com-
peting readings of these two elements. 

The  Government  reads  the  terms  broadly  and  in  isola-
tion.  On  the  Government’s  view,  “[a]  defendant  uses  a
means of identification ‘in relation to’ a predicate offense if
the  use  of  that  means  of  identification  ‘facilitates  or  fur-
thers’ the predicate offense in some way.”  Brief for United 
States  10  (quoting  Smith  v.  United  States,  508  U. S.  223, 
232  (1993)).  As  to  “uses,”  the  Government  seems  just  to 
mean “employ[s]” in any sense.  Brief for United States 5, 
7, 10–11.  Section 1028A(a)(1) would thus apply automati-
cally any time a name or other means of identification hap-
pens to be part of the payment or billing method used in the 
commission  of  a  long  list  of  predicate  offenses.    In  other 
words, virtually all of the time.

Petitioner,  in  response,  offers  a  more  targeted  reading.
For petitioner, using a means of identification in relation to 

—————— 

2 See  Berroa,  856  F. 3d,  at  148,  155–157;  Michael,  882  F. 3d,  at  628; 

Spears, 729 F. 3d, at 754; Hong, 938 F. 3d, at 1051. 

3 The  Government  argued  below  that  because  petitioner  did  not 
properly raise certain challenges to his §1028A conviction, he cannot ob-
tain  relief  without  meeting the  higher  bar  for  plain-error  review.    The 
Fifth Circuit below did not decide that question, which this Court leaves 
for remand.