Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 19

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

In contrast, if §1028A(a)(1)’s verbs do not track identity 
theft and if the means of identification need only facilitate 
the predicate offense, the other two verbs threaten to leave 
“uses” without “virtually any function.”  Bailey, 516 U. S., 
at 146.  Return to a definition of “in relation to” that just 
means  “ ‘facilitates  or  furthers’  the  predicate  offense  in 
some way.”  Brief for United States 10.  In virtually all cases
where a defendant employs a means of identification to fa-
cilitate a crime, the defendant will also possess or transfer 
the  means  of  identification  in  a  way  that  facilitates  the 
crime.  For example, petitioner’s possession of the patient’s 
means  of  identification  facilitated  the  fraud,  as  did  peti-
tioner’s transfer of the patient’s means of identification to 
Medicaid.  It is hard to imagine when “uses” would not sim-
ilarly  be  covered  by,  at  least,  one  of  the  two  other  verbs. 
This risk of superfluity suggests giving §1028A(a)(1) a more 
precise reading.

In sum, §1028A(a)(1)’s title and text are mutually rein-
forcing.  Both point toward requiring the means of identifi-
cation to be at the crux of the criminality. 

D 
Section 1028A’s list of predicate offenses points to yet an-
other stumbling block for the Government’s broad reading. 
Section 1028A(a)(1) is an enhancement, and a severe one at
that.  It adds a 2-year mandatory prison sentence onto un-
derlying  offenses  that  do  not  impose  a  mandatory  prison
sentence of any kind.  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §1035 (“[f]alse 
statements relating to health care matters,” setting no min-
imum sentence).  This prevents sentencing judges from con-
sidering the severity of the offense, even if the amount of 
money involved was quite small or there are other mitigat-
ing factors.  Interpretation of §1028A(a)(1) should thus re-
flect the “distinction between” the aggravated identity theft
crimes that “Congress sought to distinguish for heightened 
punishment and other crimes.”  Leocal, 543 U. S., at 11.