Abouammo v. United States, Docket No. 25-5146

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

This case reveals how the Constitution still protects one of the rights the Founders fought hardest to preserve. Ahmad Abouammo sold his employer's secrets to a Saudi official for $300,000. When the FBI showed up at his Seattle home to question him, he panicked. He went upstairs, created a fake invoice on his computer, and emailed it to an agent. The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the government cannot drag you across the country to stand trial for a crime you committed at home.

What Happened

Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, handed over confidential user information to a Saudi official in exchange for cash. When FBI agents came to his Seattle home to interview him, he created a fraudulent invoice and emailed it to one of the agents, hoping to cover his tracks.

The government charged him with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation. But instead of trying him in Seattle, where he actually created the fake document, prosecutors brought the case in Northern California, where the FBI investigation was based. Abouammo's lawyers said that was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, unanimously.

The Two Sides of the Argument

Abouammo's defense was straightforward: he falsified a document in Seattle. That is the crime. The trial should happen where the crime happened.

The government offered two counterarguments. First, it said that because the law requires proving Abouammo intended to obstruct an investigation, the trial could be held wherever that investigation was taking place. Second, prosecutors compared document falsification to conspiracy, a crime that can be prosecuted anywhere any part of the criminal plan occurred. They pointed out that Abouammo emailed the fake invoice to an FBI agent in San Francisco, creating a connection to California.

Why the Court Sided With the Defendant

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the entire Court, and she began with history. The Founders despised the British practice of shipping colonists across the ocean for trial. This abuse was so hated that it appears in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution protects the right to a local trial in two separate places, showing how seriously the Founders took this principle.

The Court identified the critical fact that the crime of falsifying a document is complete the moment you create it with intent to obstruct. Nothing else needs to happen. No email needs to arrive. No investigation needs to be disrupted. The crime is finished in Seattle, where Abouammo sat at his computer.

This distinction between what someone does and what they intend matters enormously. The government wanted to use Abouammo's intent to obstruct an investigation as a reason to move the trial to California. The Court rejected this. Where a crime is prosecuted depends on where the defendant acted, not on what was happening in their mind or what they hoped would happen elsewhere. Falsifying a document happens in the same place regardless of why you are doing it.

The Court also rejected the conspiracy comparison. Conspiracy requires multiple steps and coordination. Document falsification under this law does not. You break the law the moment you create the false document, even if you never send it or show it to anyone. That makes it a complete crime on its own, not an incomplete one that can be prosecuted anywhere the effects might be felt.

The Fundamental Right to Be Tried Near Home

This decision protects something fundamental: your right to be tried near home is fundamental. The government cannot use vague intent requirements to drag defendants across the country. What matters is where you acted.

The Court left one opening. Congress can write specific rules about where certain crimes can be prosecuted if it chooses to do so. This ruling only addresses the default rule when Congress has said nothing. The practical result is a tradeoff: if the government wants a law that is easy to prove, it has to accept that trials must happen where the defendant actually committed the crime.

The framers of the Constitution were explicit to protect your right to be tried in your own community, not in some distant courthouse chosen by prosecutors for their convenience. That protection matters because trials are easier to defend when they happen close to home, where your community knows you and where witnesses live.