Martin Mizrahi v. United States

Five years before this Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Court stated in Libretti v. United States, “that the right to a jury verdict on forfeitability does not fall within the Sixth Amendment’s constitutional protection.” 516 U.S. 29, 49 (1995). Apprendi, however, held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490. Southern Union Co. v. United States, later extended Apprendi by barring the “imposition of criminal fines based on judicial factfinding.” 567 U.S. 343, 350 (2012). Because criminal forfeiture is a type of fine for constitutional purposes, Southern Union’s holding logically applies to criminal forfeiture as well. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 328 (1998) (“Forfeitures—payments in kind—are thus ‘fines’ if they constitute punishment for an offense.”). Despite the inconsistency between Libretti and the Court’s subsequent decisions in Apprendi and Southern Union, lower courts feel “compelled to apply Libretti” until this Court exercises its “‘prerogative in overruling its own decisions.’” United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913, 935 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)). This Court recently explained that Apprendi’s principles “are so firmly entrenched that we have now overruled several decisions inconsistent with them.” Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 833–34 (2024) (listing cases). Libretti is another pre-Apprendi decision that should be overruled. The question presented is whether Libretti should be overruled.