Liparota v. United States
United States Supreme Court
471 U.S. 419 (1985)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Under the federal regulations governing food stamps, a person was not authorized to acquire food stamps by purchasing them from another individual. A federal statute also made it a crime for anyone to knowingly acquire food stamps in an unauthorized manner. On three separate occasions, Frank Liparota (defendant) purchased food stamps from undercover agents for significantly less than the face value of the stamps. The stamps were marked with the word nontransferable, and Liparota arranged for the purchases to occur in the back room of his sandwich shop, out of view of the public. Liparota was criminally charged with knowingly acquiring food stamps in an unauthorized manner. At trial, Liparota argued that he could be found guilty only if he knew that his method of acquiring the food stamps was unauthorized. The trial court ruled that Liparota was guilty if (1) he knew that he was acquiring food stamps and (2) the acquisition method was unauthorized, regardless of whether Liparota knew that the method was unlawful. Liparota was convicted, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review whether knowledge of the acquisition method’s unlawfulness was an element of the crime.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Dissent (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
