Abouammo v. United States - Date Argued: 03/30/26

Case Summary: In the case of Abouammo v. United States (Docket No. 25-5146), argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 30, 2026, the relevant facts are as follows:Fact SummaryThe litigation involves Ahmad Abouammo, a former Media Partnerships Manager at Twitter, who was convicted of acting as an unregistered agent of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and falsifying records to obstruct a federal investigation.The core factual dispute concerns a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. In 2018, FBI agents interviewed Abouammo at his home in Seattle, Washington, regarding his alleged receipt of luxury goods and $300,000 from Saudi officials in exchange for the private data of dissident Twitter users.During that interview in Seattle, Abouammo excused himself, went to another room, fabricated a backdated $100,000 invoice to make the payments appear as legitimate "consulting fees," and emailed the document to the agents while they were still in his house.The government prosecuted Abouammo in the Northern District of California (San Francisco), arguing that venue was proper there because the underlying federal investigation he intended to obstruct was based in San Francisco, where Twitter is headquartered.Abouammo moved to dismiss the falsification count, arguing that under the Sixth Amendment and Article III of the Constitution, venue is only proper in the district where the "essential conduct" occurred. He contends that since the document was created and sent entirely within Seattle (the Western District of Washington), California was an unconstitutional venue for that specific charge.In 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that venue for a Section 1519 violation is proper either where the document was falsified or where the investigation it was intended to impede was located.During the oral arguments on March 30, 2026, the Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of the government's "intended effects" theory. Justice Kagan noted that if the court looks strictly at the "essential conduct elements" of the statute—the act of falsifying—Abouammo would win, as the email to San Francisco was evidence of intent but not a required element of the crime itself.The Court explored the "vicinage requirement" and the historical origins of the Venue Clause, which was a reaction to the British practice of transporting American colonists to England for trial. The justices questioned whether allowing venue based on the location of a "contemplated effect" would give the government a "blank check" to manufacture venue by simply basing an investigation in a district favorable to the prosecution.