Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–10 
_________________ 

DAVID FOX DUBIN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 8, 2023]

 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 
There is no dispute that petitioner David Fox Dubin over-
billed  Medicaid  for  psychological  testing.    The  question  is
whether,  in  defrauding  Medicaid,  he  also  committed 
“[a]ggravated identity theft,” 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1), trig-
gering a mandatory 2-year prison sentence.  The Fifth Cir-
cuit found that he did, based on a reading of the statute that 
covers  defendants  who  fraudulently  inflate  the  price  of  a 
service or good they actually provided.  On that sweeping 
reading,  as  long  as  a  billing  or  payment  method  employs
another  person’s  name  or  other  identifying  information,
that is enough.  A lawyer who rounds up her hours from 2.9
to 3 and bills her client electronically has committed aggra-
vated  identity  theft.  The  same  is  true  of  a  waiter  who 
serves  flank  steak  but  charges  for  filet  mignon  using  an
electronic payment method.

The text and context of the statute do not support such a
boundless interpretation.  Instead, §1028A(a)(1) is violated 
when the defendant’s misuse of another person’s means of 
identification is at the crux of what makes the underlying 
offense criminal, rather than merely an ancillary feature of
a billing method.  Here, the crux of petitioner’s overbilling
was inflating the value of services actually provided, while