Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Abouammo v. United States, a case that could fundamentally redefine where the federal government is permitted to prosecute American citizens. At the heart of the dispute is whether the government can manipulate the venue by trying a defendant in a jurisdiction where no criminal act occurred.

Following today’s oral arguments, Mike Fox, a legal fellow with the Cato Institute and co-author of Cato’s amicus brief in this case, released the following statement:

The Ninth Circuit’s decision ignores the historical roots of the Constitution’s Venue and Vicinage Clauses. These provisions were established by the Framers to prevent the very gamesmanship seen today — a practice tracing back to the British Crown’s attempts to ship colonists overseas for trial, thereby stripping them of a local jury.

The government’s position invites a dangerous precedent where prosecutors can choose a favored forum simply by dispatching agents from a specific district. This practice bypasses the constitutionally assigned role of the local jury as the conscience of the community in favor of a jury pool that may be more aligned with the government’s narrative.

While it’s never possible to predict outcomes from oral arguments alone, the questions posed by the justices were encouraging.

To speak with Fox on today’s oral arguments, contact Cato PR at pr@​cato.​org.