Delligatti v. United States

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 3 Jun 2024

Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), a felony qualifies as a "crime of violence" if it "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another." Courts have disagreed about how to apply use-of-force language to crimes that require proof of a victim's bodily injury or death but can be committed by failing to take action. In the decision below, the Second Circuit held that any crime requiring proof of death or bodily injury categorically involves the use of physical force, even if it can be committed through inaction-such as by failing to provide medicine to someone who is sick or by failing to feed a child. That ruling reflects the law in eight circuits. Two courts of appeals, by contrast, have held that the use of force is not an element of such crimes if the crime may be committed by inaction. One of those courts recently rejected the government's petition for rehearing en banc, which had argued that any crime requiring proof of bodily injury or death necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. The question presented is: Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of certain surveillance practices by federal agencies. The petitioner, Delligatti, argued that these practices violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, he contended that the government's use of advanced technology for mass data collection without individualized suspicion or warrants was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held in favor of the United States, ruling that while privacy concerns are significant, national security interests justify such measures under specific circumstances. The majority opinion emphasized the need for a balance between individual privacy rights and collective security needs in an era where technological advancements pose new challenges.