Page:Dubin v. United States.pdf/8

4 Many lower courts have responded to such prosecutions with more restrained readings of the aggravated identity theft statute. The Fifth Circuit did not. To resolve the conflict in the courts below, this Court granted certiorari, 598 U. S. ___ (2022), and now vacates the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remands.

This case turns on two of §1028A(a)(1)’s elements. Of the various possible ways to violate §1028A(a)(1), petitioner was convicted for “us[ing]” a patient’s means of identification “in relation to” healthcare fraud. The parties offer competing readings of these two elements.

The Government reads the terms broadly and in isolation. On the Government’s view, “[a] defendant uses a means of identification ‘in relation to’ a predicate offense if the use of that means of identification ‘facilitates or furthers’ the predicate offense in some way.” Brief for United States 10 (quoting Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 232 (1993)). As to “uses,” the Government seems just to mean “employ[s]” in any sense. Brief for United States 5, 7, 10–11. Section 1028A(a)(1) would thus apply automatically any time a name or other means of identification happens to be part of the payment or billing method used in the commission of a long list of predicate offenses. In other words, virtually all of the time.

Petitioner, in response, offers a more targeted reading. For petitioner, using a means of identification in relation to