What federal charges must say
Sean Christopher Williams v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Sean Christopher Williams asked whether prosecutors must identify in the charging document which basis they would use to prove the interstate-commerce element of his federal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- Who it affects
- Williams’s Supreme Court proceeding ended without a decision on whether the charging document had to identify the interstate-commerce basis.
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 question.
The case came to the Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Question presented
Whether Procedural Due Process requires the United States to state in the charging instrument what “jurisdictional hook” it is relying on to prove the interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) such that a Defendant is properly on notice?
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.