Marinello v. United States
The court held that, to convict a defendant under the Internal Revenue Code's Omnibus Clause, the Government must prove the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as a particular investigation or audit, or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence.
138 S. Ct. 1101 · No. 16-1144 · 2017 term · Roberts Court
Decided Mar 21, 2018 · argued Dec 6, 2017
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: internal revenue (cf
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed and remanded. Marinello won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Marinello was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Marinello v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, to convict a defendant under the Internal Revenue Code's Omnibus Clause, the Government must prove the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as a particular investigation or audit, or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Clarence ThomasWrote a dissent
Samuel AlitoJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- MarinelloTaxpayer or executor of taxpayer's estate, federal only
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Internal Revenue Code and pre-IRC revenue acts
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Mar 21, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. Marinello won.
- Dec 6, 2017ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
17 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: internal revenue (cf, newest first.
- Michael H. Boulware v. United States552 U.S. 421Mar 3, 2008 · 552 U.S. 421Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Waldemar Ratzlaf and Loretta Ratzlaf v. United States510 U.S. 135Jan 11, 1994 · 510 U.S. 135Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- John L. Cheek v. United States498 U.S. 192Jan 8, 1991 · 498 U.S. 192Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Standefer v. United States447 U.S. 10Jun 9, 1980 · 447 U.S. 10Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Habig et al.390 U.S. 222Mar 5, 1968 · 390 U.S. 222Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Lopez v. United States373 U.S. 427May 27, 1963 · 373 U.S. 427Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Ingram et al. v. United States360 U.S. 672Jun 29, 1959 · 360 U.S. 672Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Achilli v. United States353 U.S. 373May 27, 1957 · 353 U.S. 373Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Berra v. United States351 U.S. 131Apr 30, 1956 · 351 U.S. 131Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Smith v. United States348 U.S. 147Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 147Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Friedberg v. United States348 U.S. 142Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 142Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Holland et ux. v. United States348 U.S. 121Dec 6, 1954 · 348 U.S. 121Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Dixon347 U.S. 381Apr 5, 1954 · 347 U.S. 381Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Carroll345 U.S. 457Apr 27, 1953 · 345 U.S. 457Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Beacon Brass Co., Inc. et al.344 U.S. 43Nov 10, 1952 · 344 U.S. 43Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Rutkin v. United States343 U.S. 130Mar 24, 1952 · 343 U.S. 130Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- United States v. Sanchez et al.340 U.S. 42Nov 13, 1950 · 340 U.S. 42Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.