Cybercrime

Building on the earlier discussion of technology-related cases, several additional decisions have shaped the landscape of cybercrime prosecutions:

1. United States v. Yücel (1st Circuit, 2020): This case upheld the conviction of a foreign national for cybercrimes committed abroad that affected U.S. victims. The court’s decision reinforces the extraterritorial reach of U.S. cybercrime laws[29].
2. HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation (9th Circuit, 2019): While primarily a civil case, this decision has implications for cybercrime prosecutions. The court held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) does not prohibit accessing publicly available data on the internet, even when the website owner has attempted to restrict access[30].
3. United States v. Spanier (3rd Circuit, 2019): This case, arising from the Penn State child abuse scandal, addressed the application of Pennsylvania’s child endangerment statute to actions taken via email and other electronic communications. The court’s decision potentially expands the reach of child protection laws in the digital realm[31].

International Criminal Law:

While most criminal law is domestic, several cases have addressed issues at the intersection of criminal and international law:

1. Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe (2021): The Supreme Court addressed the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in the context of allegations of child slavery in cocoa production. While the Court did not categorically foreclose ATS suits against U.S. corporations, it set a high bar for establishing domestic conduct sufficient to support such claims[32].
2. United States v. Sineneng-Smith (2020): The Court invalidated a federal statute criminalizing the encouragement of illegal immigration for financial gain, finding it overbroad under the First Amendment. This decision has implications for the intersection of criminal law, immigration law, and free speech[33].
3. Trump v. Hawaii (2018): While primarily an immigration case, this decision upholding the third version of the Trump administration’s travel ban has ongoing implications for the intersection of national security, immigration policy, and criminal law[34].

These additional cases further illustrate the complex and evolving nature of criminal law, particularly as it intersects with environmental issues, technology, and international concerns. They demonstrate the ongoing challenges courts face in applying traditional legal principles to novel situations and emerging societal priorities.

[26] United States v. Lucero, 989 F.3d 1088 (10th Cir. 2021) [27] People v. Conagra Grocery Products Company, 17 Cal. App. 5th 51 (2017) [28] In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 959 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) [29] United States v. Yücel, 963 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2020) [30] HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019) [31] United States v. Spanier, 922 F.3d 146 (3rd Cir. 2019) [32] Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U.S. ___ (2021) [33] United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) [34] Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)