Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) the knowledge required to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm; (2) criminal liability and causation for drug-related deaths; and (3) retaliation against private contractors working for publicly held companies under Sarbanes-Oxley:
(1) Rosemond v. US [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-895]
- In order to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime, does the government need to prove that the defendant intentionally facilitated or encouraged the use of the firearm, or merely that the defendant knew that the principal used a firearm during the crime?
(2) Burrage v. US [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-7515]
- Can a defendant who sells drugs to someone who dies of an overdose be held criminally liable for that person’s death if the drug contributed to the victim’s death but was not the sole cause?
(3) Lawson v. FMR, LLC [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-3]
- Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, which forbids publicly traded companies, mutual funds, and contractors or subcontractors of such companies from discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of certain protected conduct, protect an employee of a privately-held contractor or subcontractor of a public company?