Luis v. United States
United States Supreme Court
578 U.S. 5 (2016)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Sila Luis (defendant) was charged by the United States (plaintiff) in federal district court with several healthcare-fraud-related crimes. The government asserted that Luis had obtained $45 million as a result of her criminal activity. Most of that money was already spent by Luis by the time she was charged. The district court issued an order to freeze Luis’s remaining assets after the government showed probable cause to believe that the government would eventually successfully recover all of Luis’s assets. The district court order prevented Luis from using personal funds unconnected to her criminal activity to hire the defense counsel of her choice. The district court acknowledged that the order affected Luis’s ability to freely select an attorney to represent her but held that the Sixth Amendment did not establish the right to use untainted funds to hire an attorney. The government did not provide any evidence that it held any property interest in the untainted assets. Luis appealed the order, arguing that it violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court of appeals upheld the order. Luis sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Kagan, J.)
Dissent (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.