U.S. Supreme Court Quick Update from American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section (CJS):
(Opinion by Justice Barrett on May 22, 2025. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.)
Summary: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.
From the Opinion:
Alpha and Kousisis warn of the consequences that will ensue if we endorse the fraudulent-inducement theory. “Under the theory,” they say, “every intentional misrepresentation designed to induce someone to transact in property would constitute property fraud.” Brief for Petitioners 40. In their view, this result threatens fair notice and, by encroaching into States’ police powers, runs headlong into principles of federalism. Id., at 38–39.
We are not persuaded. The “demanding” materiality requirement substantially narrows the universe of actionable misrepresentations. Universal Health Services, 579 U. S., at 194. And the boundaries of the fraudulent-inducement theory are not so imprecise as to risk encroachment on States’ authority or to “create traps” for the “unwary.” Snyder v. United States, 603 U. S. 1, 15 (2024). Rather, the theory criminalizes a particular species of fraud: intentionally lying to induce a victim into a transaction that will cost her money or property. As Judge Learned Hand put it, “[a] man is none the less cheated out of his property, when he is induced to part with it by fraud, because he gets a quid pro quo of equal value.” United States v. Rowe, 56 F. 2d 747, 749 (CA2 1932).
The “language of the wire fraud statute” is undeniably “broad.” Pasquantino, 544 U. S., at 372. But Congress enacted the wire fraud statute, and it is up to Congress—if it
so chooses—to change it
See complete opinion here.