Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110

Background

David Dubin managed a psychological-services company that submitted Medicaid claims overstating the provider’s qualifications and altering service dates, inflating reimbursement for services actually provided.
He was convicted of healthcare fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1347 and of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1), which carries a mandatory 2-year consecutive sentence when a defendant “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person” during and in relation to a predicate offense (here, healthcare fraud).
The Government argued §1028A(a)(1) was satisfied because the fraudulent billing included the patient’s Medicaid reimbursement number (a means of identification), advancing a broad “facilitates or furthers” standard for “uses…in relation to.”
The District Court doubted this was identity theft but felt bound by Fifth Circuit precedent; the Fifth Circuit en banc affirmed in a fractured decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court held §1028A(a)(1) requires that the use of another’s means of identification be at the crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal — i.e., used fraudulently or deceptively as to identity (who is involved), not merely an ancillary billing or payment detail — and vacated and remanded Dubin’s aggravated-identity-theft conviction.
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment, agreeing the Government’s reading was untenable but warning the Court’s “crux” test risks vagueness and may leave §1028A(a)(1) difficult to apply consistently.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1028A(a)(1) is triggered when a means of identification is included in billing that facilitates a predicate crime	Government: "uses…in relation to" means any employment of another’s identifying data that facilitates or furthers the predicate offense	Dubin: Requires a "genuine nexus" — the identification must be used fraudulently/deceptively as to identity (who) and be central to the criminality	Court: "Uses…in relation to" requires the means of identification be at the crux of the criminality; mere facilitation or ancillary role in billing is insufficient
How to interpret “uses” and “in relation to” in §1028A(a)(1)	Government: Read broadly and similarly to other statutes (e.g., §924(c)) as facilitating the predicate offense	Dubin: Context and statutory structure limit the terms to ordinary identity-theft meanings	Court: Both terms are context-sensitive; reading must consider statute title, surrounding verbs, and statutory scheme to avoid overbreadth
Whether the trio of verbs (“transfers, possesses, or uses”) requires a theft/identity-theft reading	Government: "Uses" can be any employment; no special identity-theft framing required	Dubin: "Transfers" and "possesses" connote theft, so "uses" should align via noscitur a sociis to capture identity-theft conduct	Court: Agrees — the verbs collectively point toward classic identity theft (theft + deceitful use), so "uses" must be read to cover deceitful or fraudulent use of identifying data
Whether a broad reading would be consistent with statutory structure and sentencing consequences	Government: Broad reading is workable and prosecutorial discretion will temper excesses	Dubin: Broad reading would sweep mundane overbilling into a mandatory 2-year enhancement; statutory structure suggests a narrower target	Court: A broad reading would collapse the enhancement into the predicate offenses and create implausibly widespread applications; prosecution discretion is not a substitute for clear statutory limits

Key Cases Cited

Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (interpretation of “use” is context-dependent)
Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 ("in relation to" requires some nexus; but context matters)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (§1028A focuses on classic identity theft)
Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (distinguishing active vs. passive/ancillary "use")
Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (titles/headings can assist statutory interpretation)
Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (useful role of titles where they reinforce text)
McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (noscitur a sociis and avoiding unintended breadth)
United States v. Michael, 882 F.3d 624 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing fraud about who received services from fraud about how/when services were performed)
United States v. Spears, 729 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. en banc) (examples of broad prosecutions under §1028A)
United States v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141 (1st Cir.) (contextual examples of §1028A applications)
United States v. Medlock, 792 F.3d 700 (6th Cir.) (billing/mischaracterization examples under §1028A)
United States v. Hong, 938 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.) (billing misuse example involving Medicare)