Dobbs, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. 19-1392

On Jan. 6, 2015, the House of Representatives adopted a rule that requires the House Judiciary Committee to be afforded an opportunity to review any bill containing new criminalization.

Powerpoint slides by Wendy Bach and Purvaja Kavattur. Presented at the NACDL Post-Dobbs Defender Skills Summit in July 2023

Brief of amici curiae of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, et al. supporting respondent Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.

Powerpoint slides by Emma Roth. Presented at the NACDL Post-Dobbs Defender Skills Summit in July 2023

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: NACDL urged the Court to define the scope of the identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, narrowly, consistent with Congressional intent and the statute’s purpose, and reverse appellant’s conviction. The statute at issue is 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (“Section 1028A”), which criminalizes aggravated identity theft and imposes an additional, consecutive two years of incarceration if defendants “use” a means of identification of another person “during and in relation to” the commission of a number of predicate felonies. Several other federal circuit courts have recently considered the scope of Section 1028A and the majority of those have adopted narrower constructions of the statute as compared to the Fifth Circuit. In doing so, they have rejected the government’s broad theories that a person violates the statute any time he mentions or otherwise recites another person’s name or identifying information while committing a predicate offense.

“This amicus brief illustrates that this sweeping application of Section 1028A is a symptom of the federal overcriminalization epidemic, enabling unelected prosecutors to consolidate even more charging and plea-bargaining power. Endorsing the Fifth Circuit’s expansive reading of Section 1028A would add yet another powerful weapon to federal prosecutors’ already stacked arsenal. This brief also demonstrates that the statutory purpose of Section 1028A is wholly at odds with the Fifth Circuit’s rationale. Simply put, Congress did not intend to criminalize Dubin’s conduct under Section 1028A, a law enacted in 2004 to address the ‘growing problem of identity theft,” targeting those who “use false identities to commit much more serious crimes.’ Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act, H.R. Rep. No. 108-528, at 3 (2004), reprinted in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N.

779 (“House Report”). Congress identified numerous examples of criminal acts covered under the statute—none of which remotely resembles Dubin’s conduct and all of which involve the use of personal information to impersonate another. In other words, the statute was intended to punish theft of an identity, something that did not happen here.”

We, the undersigned organizations, write in opposition to S. 686, the “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act,” or the “RESTRICT Act.” The RESTRICT Act aims at information and communications (ICTs) technologies like TikTok that are considered a threat to the United States. 

As a criminal defense organization, we do not profess to possess expertise in policing practices insofar as those practices do not directly intersect with the criminal justice system. But many police practices do have a direct impact on the treatment of accused persons, the degree to which their cases are litigated justly, and case outcomes. Accordingly, we offer a few key insights, which we hope will find their way into the Commission’s recommendations.

20^th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 18-20, 2021 | Held Virtually

Hear from members of NACDL’s Women in Criminal Defense Committee as they highlight the report’s key findings and the impact of these laws on our criminal legal system.

20^th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 18-20, 2021 | Held Virtually

This panel examines the continued criminalization of HIV and other health status, the undermining of the central principle that criminal intent be required for criminal liability, and efforts to reform these discriminatory laws.

The expected prosecutions as a result of the Dobbs decision are bearing down on a system already overwhelmed post-COVID. Because of the promise of arrests for those traveling interstate seeking services, defense attorneys may feel an impact even if they do not practice in an abortion-restrictive jurisdiction.

This study of the 114^th Congress revisits a 2010 joint report by the Heritage Foundation and NACDL: Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law. This new study found that Congress still regularly introduces bills with new criminal provisions that contain mens rea requirements that are not sufficiently protective. In fact, 42% of the bills analyzed had criminal intent requirements that were considered inadequate. [Released December 2021]

The Fourth Amendment has entered the digital age. New surveillance technologies and programs — from GPS tracking devices to automated license plate readers to bulk data collection — have upended traditional law enforcement practices and created new challenges for defense lawyers. This report offers an overview of this symposium and the substantive areas of concern related to new technological and legal changes that impact Fourth Amendment protections in criminal cases. [Released June 2016]

On May 26, 2016, NACDL co-hosted a free law and policy symposium with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform entitled The Enforcement Maze: Over-Criminalizing American Enterprise. The day-long symposium featured key leaders from industry, academy, law and policy across the political spectrum. [Released August 2018]

The integrity of the criminal justice system relies on the guarantees made to the actors operating within it. For the accused, the guarantee of fair process includes not only the right to put on a defense, but to put on a complete defense. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this guarantee over 50 years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, when it declared that failure to disclose favorable information violates the constitution when that information is material. This guarantee, however, is frequently unmet. [Released November 2014]