Lagos v. United States (16-1519)

argument 16-1519

Lagos v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 57 min 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) cover and exclude?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case sixteen,

Unknown 0:02

fifteen, nineteen, Lagos versus the United States. Mr Geyser. Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act covers the cost of lost income and necessary childcare, transportation and other expenses while participating in the investigation or prosecution of the offense or attending proceedings related to that offence. That language does not cover the cost of hiring four law firms, a consulting firm and forensic experts for a private investigation and bankruptcy litigation. The government's theory does not fit Section thirty six sixty three A's plain text, and it cannot explain the clear and obvious differences between this statute and other restitution provisions, which, unlike here, were unlike here, Congress did provide make hole relief.

Unknown 0:50

The government tries to make up for these deficiencies by citing statements in the legislative history, broad declarations of Congress's purpose, and the ordinary definition of restitution. None of these appear anywhere in the statute. The government looks everywhere but the statutory text because the language and logic of the provision is directly at odds with the government's reading. Wouldn't there be a perverse incentive? We would Be telling Um creditors. Don't Don't investigate immediately. No, Your Honor. The i first companies have incentives independent of the possibility of getting a restitution award to investigate potential misconduct. And this is not saying, even if it's not covered as restitution, that it's the only mechanism to re to get recompense.

Unknown 1:43

They can file civil actions. The key here is what Congress had in mind when it detailed four specific provisions in subsection B of the mandatory victims' restitution. Act. And the term there that's very important is mandatory. Congress realized it was requiring restitution in these cases, and there are tens of thousands of sentencing proceedings each year under this provision. Is there a difference? Excuse me. Is there a difference on uh Honor the Bankruptcy Law. I I assume that if Uh the government's correct. In this case it's not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I just assume that. I think Section 523 of Title XI may make a civil order non-dischargeable. The restitution amount itself is nondischargeable. That's true.

Unknown 2:27

Do you do you know if the uh cost incurred in this case would um be also nondischargible in a civil action filed by the employer? Uh I think under Section five twenty three of of the bankruptcy code it may not be dischargeable. I think it is a close question. It depends on the nature of the offense and uh and the the underlying basis of the civil judgment.

John G. Roberts 2:48

What what if the government uh approached GE and said, look, this is a very complicated financial fraud, we're busy with some other stuff. We would like you to go ahead and investigate it to the extent you can, and they'd use the results of their investigation in their prosecution.

Unknown 3:03

Uh that is still not covered, uh, Mr. Chief Justice, because if you look at the specific enumeration of expenses, Congress here invoked the classic use them generous formulation. It has specific expenses, child care and transportation. Followed by a general residual clause that looks absolutely nothing like attorneys' fees. Where Congress wanted to include attorneys' fees and investigation expenses, it did that. As we see in sections uh twenty two forty eight and sections twenty two fifty nine.

John G. Roberts 3:31

phrase, other expenses uh incurred during participation in the investigation. I don't know why, if the government is essentially delegating its responsibility, uh that those expenses wouldn't be covered.

Unknown 3:44

Well, two reasons, Ronor. Again, under you s under you used them generous, you don't simply say look at the the the capacious residual phrase. It is necessarily limited to like expenses. Attorneys' fees and private investigation expenses don't look like child care and transportation. When Congress wanted to

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:59

How would you define the common denominator of those expenses?