December 2022 Supreme Court Criminal Law Update editorial image showing abstract United States v. Hansen immigration encouragement review, Lora § 924(j) sentencing discretion, Samia redacted co-defendant confession and Confrontation Clause issue, Smith improper venue remedy, EQUAL Act crack sentencing reform, compassionate release, Fair Sentencing Act relief, and federal post-conviction screening.
by

Latest Updates

December 2022 Supreme Court Criminal Law Update

Supreme Court criminal law update covering United States v. Hansen, Lora v. United States, Samia v. United States, Smith v. United States, immigration encouragement offenses, § 924(j) sentencing, redacted co-defendant confessions, venue remedy, crack cocaine sentencing reform, compassionate release statistics, Fair Sentencing Act relief, and federal case-screening considerations.

Supreme Court Criminal Law Update Overview

December 2022 Supreme Court Criminal Law Update focused on several criminal-law and criminal-procedure cases added to the Supreme Court’s merits docket for the 2022–2023 Term.

This update discusses United States v. Hansen, Lora v. United States, Samia v. United States, Smith v. United States, immigration encouragement statutes, § 924(j) sentencing discretion, redacted co-defendant confessions, Sixth Amendment confrontation issues, improper venue, retrial remedies, crack cocaine sentencing reform discussions, compassionate release, Fair Sentencing Act relief, and federal relief screening.

This federal relief update is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create legal representation.

Supreme Court Watch

United States v. Hansen: Immigration Encouragement and the First Amendment

In United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court agreed to review a First Amendment challenge to the federal immigration statute prohibiting certain conduct that encourages or induces unlawful immigration.

Hansen had been convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and related penalty provisions after running a program that promised unauthorized immigrants a path to citizenship through adult adoption in exchange for substantial fees.

The Ninth Circuit had held the encouragement provision facially overbroad. The Supreme Court later reversed, holding that the statute was not unconstitutionally overbroad when properly interpreted as targeting solicitation and facilitation, rather than ordinary protected speech.

Federal Relief Consideration: Immigration-related criminal cases may deserve review where the conviction involved encouragement, inducement, solicitation, facilitation, immigration advice, speech-based conduct, or First Amendment arguments under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.

Lora v. United States: § 924(j) Sentencing and Consecutive Sentences

In Lora v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether § 924(c)’s consecutive-sentence mandate applies to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).

Lora was convicted of a drug-trafficking-related murder under § 924(j). The district court and Second Circuit treated the § 924(j) sentence as subject to § 924(c)’s mandatory consecutive-sentence rule.

The Supreme Court later held that § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii)’s bar on concurrent sentences does not apply to § 924(j). That means a district court has discretion to impose a § 924(j) sentence concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(j) cases may deserve review where the sentencing court believed it was required to impose a consecutive sentence and did not recognize discretion to impose concurrent time.

Samia v. United States: Redacted Co-Defendant Confessions

In Samia v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed to review a Sixth Amendment confrontation issue involving a redacted confession by a non-testifying co-defendant at a joint trial.

The case involved a confession that did not use Samia’s name but was alleged to have immediately incriminated him when considered with other trial evidence. The trial court instructed the jury to consider the confession only against the co-defendant who made the statement.

The Supreme Court later held that admission of a redacted confession that avoids directly naming the defendant and is accompanied by a limiting instruction does not necessarily violate the Confrontation Clause.

Federal Relief Consideration: Joint-trial cases may deserve review where prosecutors used a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession, redacted statement, nickname, blank space, neutral phrase, or other wording that may have effectively identified the defendant.

Smith v. United States: Improper Venue and Remedy

In Smith v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed to decide the proper remedy when a defendant is tried in the wrong venue.

Smith argued that because one count was tried in the wrong district, the proper remedy was acquittal and a bar on retrial. The government argued that retrial in a proper venue was allowed.

The Supreme Court later held that the Double Jeopardy Clause permits retrial after a conviction is vacated because trial occurred in the wrong venue.

Federal Relief Consideration: Venue issues may deserve review where the charged conduct, defendant location, server location, transaction location, victim location, or acts essential to the offense occurred outside the district of prosecution.

Other News

EQUAL Act and Crack Cocaine Sentencing Reform Discussions

The source update discussed ongoing congressional negotiations involving the EQUAL Act and alternative proposals to reduce the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

The EQUAL Act had passed the House with broad support but remained stalled in the Senate. Other proposals would have reduced, but not eliminated, the disparity and handled retroactivity differently.

Federal Relief Consideration: Proposed legislation is not the same as enacted law. Crack cocaine cases should be screened using statutes and relief mechanisms actually in effect, including the Fair Sentencing Act, First Step Act § 404, compassionate release, guideline amendments, and clemency where appropriate.

Why Hansen Matters for Immigration-Related Criminal Cases

Immigration-related criminal statutes may sometimes overlap with speech, advice, facilitation, fraud, or assistance. The line between protected speech and criminal solicitation or facilitation can matter.

In Hansen, the Supreme Court interpreted the statute narrowly enough to reject the facial overbreadth challenge.

Federal Relief Consideration: Immigration encouragement cases may require examining the indictment, jury instructions, speech or conduct at issue, fee structure, alleged fraud, First Amendment objections, and whether the statute was applied to protected speech or criminal solicitation.

Why Lora Matters for § 924(j) Sentencing

Section 924(c) generally carries mandatory consecutive sentences for firearm use, carrying, possession, brandishing, or discharge during certain crimes. Section 924(j), however, is structured differently and applies where death results.

Lora became important because it confirmed that sentencing courts have discretion to decide whether a § 924(j) sentence should run concurrently or consecutively.

Federal Relief Consideration: A § 924(j) review may require examining the judgment, sentencing transcript, statement of reasons, statutory sentencing language, whether the court believed consecutive time was mandatory, and whether the issue was preserved or raised on appeal.

Why Samia Matters for Joint Trials

Joint trials can create confrontation issues when one defendant’s confession incriminates another defendant but the confessing co-defendant does not testify and cannot be cross-examined.

Redactions and limiting instructions can matter, but the record must be reviewed carefully to determine whether the statement directly identified or powerfully incriminated another defendant.

Federal Relief Consideration: Joint-trial review may require the confession, redacted version, trial transcript, limiting instructions, opening and closing arguments, witness testimony, Bruton objections, severance motions, and appellate history.

Why Smith Matters for Venue

The Constitution and federal rules generally require criminal prosecution in a proper venue. Venue can become complicated in internet, fraud, financial, transportation, conspiracy, and multi-district cases.

Although Smith later held that retrial may be permitted after improper venue, a venue error can still matter because it may result in vacatur and require the government to retry the case in a proper district.

Federal Relief Consideration: Venue review may require the indictment, trial evidence, jury instructions, district-specific conduct, server or transaction records, location of essential offense elements, objections, and appellate history.

Why Crack Sentencing Reform Discussions Matter

Federal crack cocaine sentencing has changed over time, but reform proposals do not automatically apply to already-sentenced individuals unless Congress enacts retroactive legislation or another relief mechanism applies.

A case-specific review should determine whether the person may qualify under the Fair Sentencing Act, First Step Act § 404, compassionate release, § 3582(c)(2), guideline amendments, DOJ policy arguments, or clemency.

Federal Relief Consideration: Crack-sentencing review may require the indictment, drug quantity, statutory penalty range, plea agreement, jury findings, § 851 enhancements, PSR, sentencing transcript, prior reduction history, and current law.

Compassionate Release and Fair Sentencing Act Context

The source update noted that six new compassionate-release motions and four Fair Sentencing Act or retroactive sentence-reduction requests were granted during the week.

These numbers provide context for federal relief activity but do not determine whether any particular person qualifies for relief.

Federal Relief Consideration: Compassionate release, Fair Sentencing Act review, retroactive guideline reductions, First Step Act credits, § 2255 motions, § 2241 petitions, and clemency are separate pathways with different rules, standards, and required records.

Fast Screening Considerations

A case-specific review may be especially important where any of the following issues appear in the record:

  • Conviction involved encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration under 8 U.S.C. § 1324
  • Immigration-related conviction involved speech, advice, assistance, solicitation, or facilitation issues
  • Sentence involved § 924(j) and the court believed consecutive time was mandatory
  • § 924(j) sentence was imposed consecutively without recognizing discretion after Lora
  • Joint trial involved a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession
  • Redacted confession may have effectively identified another defendant
  • Venue may have been improper for one or more counts
  • Internet, server, fraud, or multi-district facts affected venue
  • Sentence involved crack cocaine mandatory minimums or crack/powder disparity
  • Case may qualify for Fair Sentencing Act, First Step Act, compassionate release, or other relief review

What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families

The December 14, 2022 Supreme Court update shows that federal relief issues may arise from Supreme Court criminal-law grants, sentencing discretion under § 924(j), immigration-speech statutes, co-defendant confession rules, venue errors, and crack cocaine sentencing reform discussions.

These issues often require reviewing the indictment, jury instructions, verdict form, plea agreement, sentencing transcript, trial evidence, co-defendant statements, venue objections, drug quantity records, First Step Act history, BOP records, and appellate history.

Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help

A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves immigration encouragement issues, First Amendment arguments, § 924(j) sentencing discretion, Bruton or confrontation issues, improper venue, crack/powder disparity, Fair Sentencing Act eligibility, First Step Act § 404 issues, compassionate-release factors, guideline-amendment screening, BOP credit issues, § 2255 issues, § 2241 issues, or other post-conviction remedies.

Because many Supreme Court developments are case-specific, circuit-specific, and procedure-specific, families should avoid relying on headlines alone. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.

Related APEX Federal Relief Resources