Reversed: Venue for a §1519 violation lies only in the district where the falsification occurred.

Constitutional concerns with the original

1. The Ninth Circuit's reasoning elevated the intended effects of the crime (obstruction) over the actual criminal conduct (falsification) when determining venue, contrary to the constitutional text requiring trial in the district 'wherein the crime shall have been committed' (Sixth Amendment) and Article III §2 cl.3.
2. The Ninth Circuit's approach effectively created a continuing venue theory for mens rea elements, which has no basis in the original meaning of the Venue Clause or the common law understanding that venue lies where the prohibited act occurs.

Solution text

Operative provisions

Bipartisan rationale

A textualist, originalist holding protects both liberal and conservative constitutional priorities. The liberal priority of avoiding government overreach in federal prosecutions is served by limiting venue to the district where the defendant acted, preventing prosecutors from forum-shopping to hostile venues. The conservative priority of federalism and limiting federal power is honored by restoring the constitutional venue requirement, as the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states the power to try most crimes, and the Venue Clause restricts federal courts to their proper territorial jurisdiction. Both parties can agree that a defendant should not be forced to stand trial far from home based on an intention the government imputes, rather than the act he actually performed.

Constitutional citations

• → Article III, Section 2, Clause 3
• → Sixth Amendment
• → Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (supporting the fairness rationale)

Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 Amendment VI Amendment V