United States v. Farooq
58 F.4th 687
| 2d Cir. | 2023Background
- Farooq, a journalist, threatened to disseminate nonconsensual nude photographs of Jane Doe to coerce her to resume a relationship; he also sent threats to John Doe and others and referenced his press access.
- FBI investigated; Farooq was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) (extortion by threats to injure reputation) as to Jane Doe and related counts.
- At plea, Farooq admitted emailing Jane Doe and threatening to send naked pictures unless she returned; defense stipulated the sought relationship was a “thing of value” and not something Farooq was legally entitled to.
- Farooq later moved to withdraw his plea (denied); he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment and 1 year supervised release with two special conditions: (1) seek retraction of articles he had published about Jane and John Doe, and (2) obtain court approval before disseminating any information about them.
- The retraction condition expired and was not renewed after a supervised-release violation; the court renewed only the publication-approval condition, which Farooq challenges on First Amendment grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Farooq) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was defective for district court not explaining Jackson "wrongfulness" element | Rule 11 satisfied because Farooq’s plea allocution and defense stipulation established he understood the nature and wrongfulness of the charge | Absence of on-the-record explanation of Jackson wrongfulness element was plain error making the plea invalid | No plain error: stipulation that the thing of value was not legally owed established lack of plausible claim of right; Rule 11 satisfied; plea stands |
| Whether retraction-of-articles supervised-release condition violated First Amendment | Condition was tied to offense and victim protection, but government notes it was later not renewed | Condition infringes speech rights | Moot: condition expired and was not renewed; appeal as to that condition dismissed |
| Whether requirement to obtain court approval before publishing about Jane/John Doe violated First Amendment | Condition is narrowly tailored to protect victims given Farooq’s history, limited in scope and duration, and allows court permission | Prior restraint and content-based restriction on speech; facially unconstitutional | Affirmed: not an abuse of discretion—condition is a content-based prior restraint but narrowly tailored, tied to offense and defendant’s history, limited scope/duration, and permits permission requests |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999) (recognizing an implicit "wrongfulness" element in § 875(d) and explaining exceptions where a plausible claim of right may negate wrongfulness)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005) (district court need not personally recite all elements on the record if competent counsel explained them)
- United States v. Balde, 943 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved Rule 11 challenges)
- United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304 (2d Cir. 2005) (defines prior restraint and underscores strong presumption against content-based prior restraints)
- United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (standards for reviewing special conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Bolin, 976 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2020) (vacating overbroad supervised-release speech restrictions as unconstitutional)