Whether, before remanding for retrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause requires an appellate court to resolve a preserved sufficiency challenge applying the current and correct law as articulated by this Court.

In its prior decision in this case two Terms ago, this Court unanimously held in Ciminelli v. United States , 598 U.S. 306 (2023) , that the Second Circuit applied a n incorrect legal standard —the so -called “rightto-control” theory —in finding the trial evidence sufficient to support petitioners’ convictions under the federal wirefraud statute . After clarifying that the statute reaches only traditional concepts of property fraud, the Court declined to address petitioners’ preserved sufficiency challenge itself but remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. What transpired on remand was inconsistent with this Court’s opinion and established law. Rather than judge the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial record by the standard that this Court set forth in Ciminelli, the Second Circuit simply remanded for a new trial on a new indictment while refusing to address petitioners’ preserved sufficiency challenge. The court of appeals justified that refusal by labeling this Court’s Ciminelli decision a “change” in the law that entitled the government to another a ttempt to convict using new evidence that it chose not to muster the first time around . That decision defies the Double Jeopardy Clause and this Court’s retroactivity precedents, is flatly inconsistent with this Court’s mandate in Ciminelli, and entrenches a circuit conflict on a critical issue that affects all criminal defendants. The question presented is: Whether, before remanding for retrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause requires an appellate court to resolve a preserved sufficiency challenge applying the current and correct law as articulated by this Court.