Duncan v. United States

Background

A defendant, Ovie L. Duncan, asked the Court to review how a federal restitution law should be read. The statute says a court may order a person convicted under federal law to pay restitution “to any victim of such offense.” The Tenth Circuit interpreted “offense” broadly, while the Sixth Circuit has taken a narrower approach in United States v. Mounts.

Reasoning

The core question was whether “offense” in the restitution law covers only victims of the specific crime for which someone was convicted, or whether it can include victims of other related acts. The Supreme Court denied the petition asking it to review the Tenth Circuit decision. Justice White dissented from that denial and said the Court should take the case to resolve the disagreement between circuits.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to hear the case, the differing interpretations between the Tenth and Sixth Circuits remain. That means whether certain victims can obtain restitution may still depend on which federal appeals court handles the case. The denial does not decide the legal question on the merits and leaves the split unresolved for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White wrote a dissent from the denial, explaining he would have granted review to settle the conflict between the circuits over how broadly “offense” should be read under the restitution statute.