Abouammo v. United States
| Abouammo v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | Abouammo v. United States |
| Docket no. | 25-5146 |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there. | |
Abouammo v. United States is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding whether it is proper for proceedings to be in a court that is not where conduct took place if effects of conduct take place where the court is.
Background
Abouammo who resided in Seattle was alleged to have provided information as part of the Saudi infiltration of Twitter and was convicted in the Northern District of California (the venue) in San Francisco "of acting as a foreign agent without notice to the Attorney General, conspiracy, wire fraud, international money laundering and falsification of records".[1]
Abouammo challenged the venue which the Ninth Circuit rejected, ruling that, because falsified documents (sent by Abouammo) were received by FBI agents in San Francisco, the venue in San Francisco was proper and saying "venue can be proper in either the district where the wrongful conduct was initiated—where the false record was created—or the district of the expressly contemplated effect—where the investigation it was intended to stymie is ongoing or contemplated."[2]
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on December 5, 2025.[3] The question to be decided was: "Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element 'contemplates' effects that could occur there." The case has been set for oral arguments on March 30, 2026.[4]
See also
References
- ^ "Former Twitter Employee Sentenced to 42 Months in Federal Prison for Acting as a Foreign Agent". justice.gov. December 15, 2022.
- ^ "Opinion" (PDF). Ninth Circuit. December 4, 2024.
Abouammo's act of making a false document "with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence" a federal investigation continued until the document was received by the person or persons whom it was intended to affect or influence. Here, the document was received by FBI agents working out of the FBI's San Francisco office, so venue in the Northern District of California was proper.
- ^ "Miscellaneous Order" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. December 5, 2025. Retrieved February 13, 2026.
- ^ "Docket for 25-5146". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 13, 2026.