Rimlawi v. United States

1 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
G
ORSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MICHAEL BASSEM RIMLAWI
24–23 v.
UNITED STATES
MRUGESHKUMAR KUMAR SHAH
24–25 v.
UNITED STATES
JACKSON JACOB
24–5032 v.
UNITED STATES
ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 24–23, 24–25 and 24–5032. Decided February 24, 2025
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
J
USTICE GORSUCH, dissenting from the denial of certio-
rari.
The Fifth Circuit held that a judge may order restitution
in a criminal case based on his own factual findings, with-
out the aid of a jury. 95 F. 4th 328, 389 (2024). About that,
I have my doubts. See Hester v. United States, 586 U. S.
1104, 1106–1107 (2019) (G
ORSUCH, J., dissenting from de-
nial of certiorari).
Consistent with the Sixth Amendment’s promise of a trial
by jury, this Court has held that “[o]nly a jury may find
‘facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to
which a criminal defendant is exposed.’” Erlinger v. United
States, 602 U. S. 821, 833 (2024) (quoting Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000)). That means a jury must
find both those facts that increase a criminal defendant’s
exposure to imprisonment and any facts that increase his

2 RIMLAWI v. UNITED STATES
G
ORSUCH, J., dissenting
exposure to monetary fines. See Southern Union Co. v.
United States, 567 U. S. 343 (2012). If all that is true, it is
difficult to see how a judge’s factual findings might suffice
to increase a criminal defendant’s exposure to a restitution
award. As this Court has recognized, “the scope of the con-
stitutional jury right must be informed by the historical role
of the jury at common law.” Id., at 353 (internal quotation
marks omitted). And more than a little evidence suggests
that, at the time of the founding, juries found the facts
needed to justify criminal restitution awards. See Hester,
586 U. S., at 1107 (opinion of G
ORSUCH, J.); see also Ap-
prendi, 530 U. S., at 502 (T
HOMAS, J., concurring); Pet. for
Cert. 10–12.
I would have granted review in this case to resolve
whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision comports with this
Court’s precedents and the Constitution’s original meaning.
In the absence of this Court’s review, I can only hope that
federal and state courts will continue to consider carefully
the Sixth Amendment’s application to criminal restitution
orders. Cf. State v. Davison, 973 N. W. 2d 276, 279 (Iowa
2022) (“restitution must be based on jury findings”). The
right to trial by jury should mean no less today than it did
at the Nation’s founding. See Hester, 586 U. S., at 1107
(opinion of G
ORSUCH, J.).