556 U.S. 646, 129 S. Ct. 1886, 173 L. Ed. 2d 853 (2009)
Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a citizen of Mexico, sought employment in the United States in 2000 by providing his employer a false name, birth date, and Social Security number along with a counterfeit alien registration card.1 The Social Security number and the number on the alien registration card were not those of any real person.2
In 2006 Flores presented his employer with new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards that used his real name, but the numbers on both cards were in fact numbers assigned to other people.3 Flores’ employer reported the request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.4 Customs discovered that the numbers on the new documents belonged to other people.5
The United States charged Flores with entering the United States without inspection under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), misusing immigration documents under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).6 Flores moved for a judgment of acquittal on the aggravated identity theft counts, claiming the Government could not prove he knew the numbers belonged to other people.7 The District Court accepted the Government’s argument that such knowledge was unnecessary.8 After a bench trial the District Court found Flores guilty of the predicate crimes and aggravated identity theft.9 The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld that determination in 274 Fed. Appx. 501 (CA8 2008) (per curiam).10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the knowledge issue in light of disagreement among the circuits.11
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew the means of identification he unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used in fact belonged to another person?12
The statute requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.13
Yes. As a matter of ordinary English grammar, it seems natural to read the statute's word knowingly as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime, including that the means of identification belonged to another person.14 In the present case Ignacio Flores-Figueroa presented his employer with new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards using numbers assigned to other people.15 Yet the Government did not prove he knew those numbers belonged to other individuals rather than being merely counterfeit.16
The District Court accepted the Government's argument that such knowledge was unnecessary. After a bench trial the court found Flores guilty of the predicate crimes and aggravated identity theft.17 The Court of Appeals upheld that determination.18 Courts ordinarily read a phrase in a criminal statute that introduces the elements of a crime with the word knowingly as applying that word to each element.19
No special context here rebuts that ordinary reading of the text.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito concurs in the judgment but writes separately.23 He cautions against reading the opinion as adopting an overly rigid rule of statutory construction.24 He observes that examples of sentences that do not conform to the ordinary usage presumption are not hard to imagine.25 Ordinary writers rarely construct the particular kind of complex sentence at issue here.26
Alito states that while a general presumption exists that the specified mens rea applies to all elements, context may rebut that presumption.27 For example, 18 U. S. C. § 2423(a) makes it unlawful to knowingly transport an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or foreign commerce with intent that the individual engage in prostitution or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. The Courts of Appeals have uniformly held that a defendant need not know the victim’s age to be guilty under this statute.28 In the present case, the Government has not pointed to contextual features that warrant a similar reading.29 The Government's interpretation would produce exceedingly odd results.30 Liability would depend on chance whether a made-up number happens to belong to a real person.31