United States v. Lanier

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsSection 242Fair warningDue processQualified immunity analogy18 U.S.C. § 242due processvagueness

Facts

Lanier, a Tennessee state judge, was convicted under § 242 for willfully depriving five women of liberty without due process by sexually assaulting them in his chambers while acting under color of law. The indictment alleged deprivation of the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process, including the right to be free from willful sexual assault. The trial court instructed the jury that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty includes bodily integrity and freedom from serious, conscience-shocking physical abuse by a state official, including certain sexually motivated assaults. The Supreme Court considered only whether prior law gave fair warning that such conduct could violate constitutional rights under § 242.

Issue

Does due process require, before criminal liability may be imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 242, that the constitutional right violated have been previously identified by the Supreme Court itself and applied in a case with fundamentally similar facts? More generally, what level of notice is required for conduct to fall within § 242's criminal prohibition?

Rule

Criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. § 242 may be imposed only if, at the time of the conduct, the statute or prior judicial decisions made it reasonably clear that the defendant's conduct was criminal. A constitutional right need not have been identified only in a prior Supreme Court case, nor must prior precedent involve fundamentally similar facts in every instance; the touchstone is whether, in light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness under the Constitution was apparent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, a city jail supervisor is prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 after repeatedly using a painful restraint technique on detainees for amusement. No Supreme Court case had previously addressed that exact restraint method, but several prior decisions had clearly described a substantive due process right to bodily integrity against conscience-shocking official abuse.

What is the strongest argument that the prosecution may proceed consistent with due process?

Explanation. The majority held that the touchstone is whether the statute, standing alone or as construed, made it reasonably clear at the time that the conduct was criminal. A prior Supreme Court decision with fundamentally similar facts is not categorically required. General constitutional rules may provide fair warning when they apply with obvious clarity to the conduct.