In the case of Salman Khade Abuelhawa v. United States, 2008, Abuelhawa was convicted on six counts of using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a drug felony under 21 U.S.C §843(b). This conviction stemmed from his use of a cell phone to arrange purchases of cocaine for personal use. The Supreme Court held that these calls did not constitute facilitation as defined by federal law because they were made in furtherance of buying drugs for personal consumption rather than distribution or sale. Therefore, it ruled in favor of Abuelhawa and reversed his convictions. The court reasoned that interpreting "facilitate" broadly enough to include simple buyer-seller transactions would distort the statute's structure and purpose which is primarily aimed at punishing those who assist or support major drug traffickers.

In the dissenting opinion for SALMAN KHADE ABUELHAWA v. UNITED STATES, Justice Souter argued that the majority's interpretation of "facilitate" in relation to drug felony was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent behavior. He contended that a person who uses a telephone to buy drugs for personal use should not be considered as someone facilitating a drug trafficking crime just because they used communication technology during the transaction. According to him, this interpretation would mean any buyer using a phone or internet could be charged with an additional felony count under federal law which is disproportionate and unjust punishment for simple possession offenses. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress did not intend such harsh consequences when drafting these laws.