Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in its affirmance of Petitioner William Hungerford's conviction by failing to properly account for the devastating harm of improper testimony delivered by an agency bureaucrat called by the prosecution solely to opine on the meaning and application of the complex regulatory scheme governing the EB-5 investment program

QUESTION PRESENTED In recent years, this Court and commentators alike have expressed increasing alarm over the unbridled deference afforded to agency bureaucrats’ interpretations of statutes and their own internal regulations and the harms imposed by that deference in the civil enforcement context. However, this Court has yet to address the serious dangers associated with this deference in the criminal context. Specifically, federal prosecutors routinely call agency officials to opine on the meaning of complex regulatory schemes in the course of criminal prosecutions, using that testimony as the foundation for the most serious deprivation of liberty—a criminal conviction. Courts have been slow to recognize the potential harm of this brand of testimony, as illustrated by this case. Thus, the question presented is whether the Fifth Circuit erred in its affirmance of Petitioner William Hungerford’s conviction by failing to properly account for the devastating harm of improper testimony delivered by an agency bureaucrat called by the prosecution solely to opine on the meaning and application of the complex regulatory scheme governing the EB-5 investment program. ii