United States v. Giacobbe, 1:18-cr-00108

Background

Robert C. Morgan was indicted in a Superseding Indictment charging conspiracy, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering; the indictment also lists twelve parcels of real property as forfeitable.
Morgan moved under the All Writs Act and the Court's inherent authority for an order confirming no pretrial restraints on his property and enjoining the Government from alleging restraints or otherwise interfering with unindicted property transfers.
The Government opposed the motion but acknowledged in briefing and at oral argument that no pretrial restraints or seizures by the United States currently exist on Morgan’s real properties and agreed to cease communications about properties not referenced in the indictment.
The Government had used imprecise language in some communications (e.g., saying it would “approve” or “oppose” transfers), and had referenced 18 U.S.C. § 2232 in correspondence, though no seizure authority had been issued.
The Court found Morgan's requested relief unprecedented and broad, and concluded that because the parties did not dispute the current lack of restraints, issuing the requested confirmation would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion.
The Court therefore denied Morgan’s motion, noting the Government’s representations and that no pretrial restraints or seizure warrants had been issued.

Issues

Issue	Morgan's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should issue an order confirming absence of pretrial restraints and enjoin Government communications suggesting restraints	Morgan sought a judicial declaration and injunction to stop Government from implying it could block transfers of unindicted property	Government acknowledged no restraints exist and agreed to stop communications about unindicted properties; opposed broad injunction as unnecessary	Denied — issuing such confirmation would be advisory and unnecessary given Government’s representations
Whether the All Writs Act or inherent authority permits the requested relief	Morgan invoked All Writs Act and inherent powers to protect his property-transferral rights	Government argued no legal restraint exists and relief is unwarranted and overly broad	Denied — relief not justified; courts must avoid advisory rulings and exercise inherent powers with restraint
Whether Government communications citing seizure statutes (e.g., § 2232) justify injunctive relief	Morgan argued misleading statutory references suggested imminent seizures and harmed his transactions	Government conceded imprecise language in some communications but denied any actual seizure authority had been invoked	Denied — imprecise language alone did not create a justiciable controversy requiring injunctive relief
Whether the Court should treat the motion as an accusation that the Government has acted unlawfully and impose sanctions or broader relief	Morgan sought prophylactic protections and enforcement against future improper statements	Government represented it would cease the challenged communications and there was no evidence of an actual restraint being represented to third parties	Denied — no evidence of ongoing illegal restraint; Court declined to expand relief or issue novel orders

Key Cases Cited

United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1977) (All Writs Act permits ancillary writs to aid court jurisdiction)
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 266 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion review for All Writs Act injunctions)
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (courts possess inherent powers but must exercise them with restraint)
Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2007) (scope of a court’s inherent powers limited to management of proceedings)
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1969) (federal courts must not issue advisory opinions)
United States v. Gibbons, 331 F. Supp. 970 (D. Del. 1971) (statutory language on seizure construed with authorization requirement)
United States v. Wall, [citation="285 F. App'x 675"] (11th Cir. 2008) (addressing limits of charging conduct under seizure-related statutes)
Mears v. Montgomery, [citation="566 F. App'x 17"] (2d Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of motion that would amount to an advisory explanation of injunction terms)