On June 11, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Abouammo v. United States that meaningfully reshapes the landscape of federal obstruction prosecutions. The Court held that charges brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which criminalizes the knowing falsification of records with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation, must be tried in the judicial district where the falsification itself occurred. Prosecutors may no longer rely on the location of the underlying investigation as a proper basis for venue.
Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan authored an opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The decision narrows the considerable flexibility that federal prosecutors had previously enjoyed in selecting a forum tied to investigative activity rather than to the alleged criminal conduct. Going forward, the constitutionally and statutorily relevant inquiry will center on the physical location where the defendant is alleged to have created, altered, or falsified the document at issue.
The implications for white-collar defense practice are immediate and substantial. Defendants currently facing Section 1519 charges in districts chosen because of where the investigation was based, rather than where the alleged conduct occurred, now have a meaningful and unanimous Supreme Court holding to support a motion challenging venue. Counsel should promptly review pending matters to determine whether the indictment alleges falsification conduct in the charging district and whether a venue challenge is procedurally available.
Beyond pending cases, the ruling should inform charging-stage advocacy and pre-indictment negotiations. Where the government is contemplating obstruction theories, defense counsel may be in a stronger position to push back on forum selection that appears disconnected from the actual conduct. The decision also underscores the importance of carefully developing the factual record regarding where documents were prepared, modified, or transmitted, as those facts will increasingly drive venue analysis.
While Abouammo is limited on its face to Section 1519, its reasoning may inform venue arguments in other obstruction-related contexts. Clients and counsel should reassess defensive strategy accordingly, particularly in multi-district investigations involving electronic records.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Clients facing or anticipating obstruction-related charges should consult qualified counsel for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.