Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

that, names or other means of identification are used rou-
tinely  for  billing  and  payment,  whether  payment  apps, 
credit and debit cards, a bill sent by mail, or an invoice sent 
electronically.  So long as the criteria for the broad predi-
cate offenses are met, the Government’s reading creates an 
automatic 2-year sentence for generic overbilling that hap-
pens to use ubiquitous payment methods. 

A far more sensible conclusion from the statutory struc-
ture is that §1028A(a)(1)’s enhancement is not indiscrimi-
nate, but targets situations where the means of identifica-
tion  itself  plays  a  key  role—one  that  warrants  a  2-year 
mandatory minimum.  This points once more to a targeted
reading, where the means of identification is at the crux of
the underlying criminality, not an ancillary feature of bill-
ing. 

E 
If more were needed, a final clue comes from the stagger-
ing breadth of the Government’s reading.  This Court has 
“ ‘traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of 
a  federal  criminal  statute.’ ”    Marinello,  584  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(slip op., at 9) (quoting United States v. Aguilar, 515 U. S. 
593, 600 (1995)); see also Arthur Andersen LLP v.  United 
States,  544  U. S.  696,  703–704  (2005);  McBoyle  v.  United 
States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931).  This restraint arises “both 
out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress and out of 
concern that a fair warning should be given to the world in 
language that the common world will understan[d] of what 
the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.”  Marinello, 
584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  After all, “[c]rimes are supposed to be defined by
the legislature, not by clever prosecutors riffing on equivo-
cal language.”  Spears, 729 F. 3d, at 758. 

—————— 
another element of the statute show that the Government itself under-
stands the problems that arise from its sweeping reading of “uses” and 
“in relation to.”