Hoarding scarce goods
Bulloch v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Kent Bulloch was convicted of conspiring to accumulate scarce face masks for resale above market prices, and he asked whether the law’s word “accumulate” meant hoarding or was unclear without consulting legislative history.
- Who it affects
- The Court’s order gave Bulloch no Supreme Court review and left his argument about the statute unanswered.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court refused to hear his case (denied review), so it did not decide that legal question.
The dispute concerned how to read “accumulate,” a word in 50 U.S.C. § 4512.
Question presented
Whether, viewed in the context of the words with which it is associated in 50 U.S.C. § 4512, “accumulate” either (a) signifies conduct that constitutes “hoarding” or (b) does not unambiguously signify conduct other than “hoarding” and therefore requires consideration of legislative history to determine its meaning and calls into play the rule of lenity.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
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.