United States v. Reilly
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
827 F. Supp. 1076, 24 ELR 20097 (1993)

- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
The United States (plaintiff) charged William Reilly (defendant) with knowingly violating 33 U.S.C. § 1411(a), a provision of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act, or ODA). Section 1411(a) stated that no person was allowed to transport material from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Section 1415(a) provided for assessment of civil penalties for such dumping, and § 1415(b) provided for criminal penalties for knowingly engaging in such dumping. The criminal penalties included imprisonment or fines up to $50,000. The government argued that, consistent with other statutory law, the use of the word “knowingly” meant only that the defendant must have consciously committed the offending acts. Reilly argued that the charges brought against him were insufficient because the word “knowingly” in § 1415(b), the criminal-penalty provision, required the government to show that he had knowledge of § 1411(a). Reilly further argued that because § 1411(a) prohibited actions with a specific purpose—the purpose of dumping in ocean waters—assessment of civil penalties under § 1415(a) implicitly required proof of intent; therefore, the government’s reading of the word “knowingly” in § 1415(b) meant that imposition of criminal penalties would require the same proof of mental state as the imposition of civil penalties, eviscerating the difference between the two penalty provisions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Farnan, 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. 46,500 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.