## Facts

- Sila Luis owned and operated two Miami health-care companies providing home health and physical therapy services.
- The United States charged Luis with federal health-care fraud offenses, alleging her companies billed Medicare for services not provided or not medically necessary, yielding nearly $45 million.
- By the time charges were brought, most of the allegedly fraud-derived funds had been spent, and Luis possessed roughly $2 million in remaining assets.
- The government sought a pretrial civil injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) to restrain property up to the value of the alleged fraud, including “property of equivalent value.”
- The district court entered an injunction freezing Luis’s assets up to $45 million, including an unquantified amount of funds conceded to be unconnected to the charged conduct (untainted assets).
- The restraint prevented Luis from using her untainted assets to retain counsel of her choice for the criminal case.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment permits a pretrial order restraining a criminal defendant’s untainted assets when the defendant needs those assets to hire counsel of choice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- A plurality concluded that the Sixth Amendment prohibits pretrial restraint of a defendant’s untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice.
- Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, providing the fifth vote to find the restraint unconstitutional in these circumstances.
- Two dissents would have upheld the restraint based on government interests in preserving funds for restitution and penalties and on forfeiture precedent.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to retain counsel of choice using the defendant’s own lawfully obtained property.
- The Constitution permits restraint of tainted assets (property obtained from or traceable to crime), even if that affects a defendant’s ability to pay counsel, because the government’s interest in such property is treated as superior.
- The Constitution forbids pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed to hire counsel of choice; otherwise, the government could effectively defeat the right by freezing innocent funds.
- The availability of court-appointed counsel does not substitute for, or eliminate, the Sixth Amendment protection for retaining counsel of choice with untainted assets.
- Courts may draw and apply a workable line between tainted and untainted assets, including by assessing traceability.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment bars the government from freezing a criminal defendant’s untainted assets before trial when the defendant needs those assets to retain counsel of choice, and it vacated the judgment upholding such a restraint.


Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016)