Whether statutes containing 'in interstate or foreign commerce' language require proof of actual interstate transmission or merely internet use

This case raises a fundamental question that has split the Circuits regarding the intersection between the use of the Internet and federal criminal law. The question is whether statutes containing the language “in interstate or foreign commerce” merely require proof that the defendant used the Internet to complete the crime or must the prosecution prove the subject online transmission actually crossed state lines. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits take the position that the government satisfies the “in interstate commerce” element of a statute simply by showing Internet use. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits hold that the government must prove that the online communication crossed state lines. ii RELATED CASES United States v. Raymond J. Liddy , No. 19-cr-01685CAB, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judgment entered September 2, 2020. United States v. Raymond J. Liddy , No. 20-50238, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered September 28, 2022. United States v. Raymond J. Liddy , No. 19-cr-01685CAB, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judgment revoking parole entered November 20, 2023. United States v. Raymond J. Liddy , No. 23-3654, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered July 7, 2024, rehearing denied October 30, 2024.