Paroline v. United States
134 S. Ct. 1710
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- Victim "Amy" was sexually abused as a child and images of that abuse were produced and widely circulated; discovery of online circulation years later caused renewed trauma, therapy costs, and alleged lost income.
- Paroline pleaded guilty to federal possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252), admitting possession of 150–300 images, two of which depicted Amy. He had no contact with or identifiable connection to Amy.
- Amy sought roughly $3.4 million in restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259 for therapy, lost income, and related costs; parties stipulated Amy had no knowledge of Paroline.
- The district court denied restitution because the Government could not prove Paroline proximately caused Amy’s specific losses under a but‑for standard; the Fifth Circuit en banc later held each possessor could be liable for the victim’s entire losses.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the proper causation standard for restitution under § 2259 and vacated the Fifth Circuit judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2259 requires proximate causation for recoverable losses | Amy: proximate‑result language applies to all listed categories or Congress intended broad recovery for child‑porn victims | Paroline: restitution must be tied to losses proximately caused by defendant's offense; cannot impose full aggregate loss | Court: § 2259 requires proximate causation — restitution limited to losses that are the proximate result of the defendant's offense |
| Whether factual (but‑for) causation is required in full | Amy/Gov’t: but‑for is impractical; aggregate or alternative causation should apply when but‑for impossible | Paroline: but‑for causation (or equivalent) required; Government must prove amount caused by this offense | Court: but‑for causation is default but not always feasible; where but‑for cannot be shown for an individual possessor, alternative (aggregate/relative‑role) approach may apply |
| If aggregate causation applies, may a single possessor be liable for entire victim losses? | Amy: yes — aggregate causation and statutory mandate require full recovery from each possessor | Paroline: holding one possessor liable for entire loss is disproportionate and legally unsupported | Court: rejects liability for entire aggregately caused amount; individual possessor should pay an amount commensurate with his relative causal role |
| How should courts determine restitution amount when individual but‑for causation is impossible? | Amy/Gov’t: courts may use rough allocation or precedents; prefer full recovery | Paroline: any allocation is speculative and arbitrary; if statutory burden cannot be met restitution should be denied | Court: district courts should estimate victim's general losses from the ongoing traffic, then use discretionary, reasonable factors (e.g., defendant’s role, number of images, distribution/reproduction, number of known/predicted offenders) to fix a proportionate restitution award; government bears burden of proof under § 3664(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (recognizing unique and continuing harms of child pornography and its circulation)
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258 (1992) (proximate‑cause concept requiring a direct relation between injury and conduct)
- Associated Gen. Contractors v. Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) (implying proximate causation requirement into statutes lacking explicit language)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (proximate‑cause is a flexible concept in statutory contexts)
- Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990) (restitution must be tied to the loss caused by the offense of conviction)
- Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007) (restitution/Fines must not be arbitrary; awards must be an application of law, not caprice)