Staff Reports
In a blow to President Biden’s administration, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s “dangerously broad” interpretation of “identity theft.” Dave Dubin, the petitioner in the case, was convicted of Medicaid fraud for overbilling the healthcare service. The Biden administration argued that Dubin should receive a two-year mandatory minimum sentence in federal prison for “aggravated identity theft” under the 2004 Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor held that Dubin’s conduct did not fit the ordinary meaning of “identity theft.”
The case involved Dubin including a patient’s information in the fraudulent medical bill, leading the DOJ to argue that it was a case of identity theft. However, the Supreme Court found fault with Biden’s “boundless interpretation” of the 2004 Act, stating that the patient’s identity was merely an “ancillary feature of a billing method.” Sotomayor argued that the essence of Dubin’s crime was misrepresentation of services, not identity theft.
The court also warned that the Biden administration’s interpretation of identity theft could make virtually anyone liable for the offense. Sotomayor gave examples of a lawyer who overbills a service electronically or a waiter who serves flank steak but charges for filet mignon through an electronic payment method, both of them potentially becoming identity thieves according to Biden’s standard.
Neil Gorsuch commended the court for rejecting the “unserious position” of the Justice Department, which would have made “almost every adult American” susceptible to identity theft. However, he criticized the court for failing to provide enough clarity as the law itself is vague and does not differentiate between what is and is not a crime.
Regardless, the court did the best it could to make sense of a flawed statute, but it is up to Congress to clarify the act, according to Gorsuch. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision is a win for individual liberty and the proper interpretation of the law. It is a reminder that even the most powerful people in Washington must adhere to the Constitution’s limits.
Source: Conservative Institute
