It would be easy to overlook the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last term in Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710, 188 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2014). Many other cases involved hot-button issues like the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, legislative prayer, campaign finance, recess appointments, and free speech around abortion clinics. Indeed, Paroline—a child-pornography case—went unmentioned in both Erwin Chemerinsky and Frederick Lawrence’s Supreme Court Review at the National Constitution Center and Paul Clement’s counterpart for the Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. Such decisions seldom apply to cases outside of that uniquely awful realm.
But Paroline is different. The court in Paroline crafted a new causation standard for awards of restitution following federal criminal convictions. As Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. noted in his dissent, the restitution statute at issue in this case is not limited to child-pornography cases. The court’s decision may thus affect a wide range of criminal cases, from fraud to conspiracy to civil rights.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]