Lagos v. United States
In brief
The Court said Lagos could not be ordered under this provision to repay the victim's private-investigation and bankruptcy costs.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · May 29, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Sergio Fernando Lagos pled guilty to wire fraud and was ordered to pay restitution for expenses the victim incurred during its own private investigation and bankruptcy proceedings.
- Who it affects
- The ruling limits restitution under this part of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act to expenses tied to government investigations and criminal proceedings.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act only covers expenses related to government investigations and criminal proceedings, not private investigations or civil proceedings.
The case defines which victim expenses federal courts may require a person convicted of a crime to repay.
Question presented
Does the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4), cover costs that were neither “required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own purposes and that were not prompted by any official government action?
What the Court decided
Holding
1. The words “investigation” and “proceedings” in subsection (b)(4) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings and do not include private investigations and civil or bankruptcy proceedings. The word “investigation” appears in the phrase “the investigation or prosecution.” Because the word “prosecution” must refer to a government’s criminal prosecution, this suggests that the word “investigation” refers to a government’s criminal investigation. Similar reasoning suggests that the immediately following reference to “proceedings” refers to criminal proceedings. 2. That the victim shared the results of its private investigation with the Government does not make the costs of conducting the private investigation “necessary . . . other expenses incurred during participation in the investigation . . . of the offense.” §3663A(b)(4). That language does not cover the costs of a private investigation that the victim chooses on its own to conduct, which are not “incurred during” participation in a government’s investigation. 864 F. 3d 320, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
What's next
The case returned to the lower court for further action consistent with the Court's ruling. The Supreme Court has finished its work on this docket.
Why it matters
A victim cannot add costs from a private investigation simply because it later shared its findings with the government.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Lagos v. United States?
- The Court said the restitution law covers government investigations and criminal proceedings, not private investigations or civil and bankruptcy proceedings.
- Who won Lagos v. United States?
- Lagos won at the Supreme Court. The Court overturned the Fifth Circuit's ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings.
- How did the Court treat costs from a private investigation?
- It said privately chosen investigation costs are not covered merely because the victim later gave its findings to the government.
- What happens next in Lagos v. United States?
- The lower court will handle the case under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the restitution law. The Supreme Court's docket action is complete.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.