Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dixson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 22, 1984No. 82-5279Published

1Dissent

Justice O’Connor,

with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Stevens join, dissenting.

The rule of lenity demands that “ambiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity.” Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808, 812 (1971). The Court concludes that congressional intent to include persons like petitioners within the coverage of 18 U. S. C. § 201 is clear enough to make the rule of lenity inapplicable. The statutory language admits of the Court’s reading, and the case for that reading would be strong, though perhaps not persuasive, if §201…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. United States v. OrleansSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Rewis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Forsham v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. James W. Harlow, Charles E. Wilson and Thomas F. Addy v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API