Recapping and assessing a SCOTUS week full of federal criminal case oral arguments

This week’s biggest legal news is surely the reports of a notable state indictment out of the Big Apple.  But, as previously previewed here, this week was also a big one for federal criminal case oral arguments before the US Supreme Court.  With help from SCOTUSblog and a few other sources, here are some recaps of how these arguments went:

United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179:

• From Roll Call, “Supreme Court scrutinizes free speech limits of immigration law“
• From SCOTUSblog, “Justices divided on the constitutionality of the federal law that bans ‘encouraging’ immigrants to remain unlawfully in the United States“

Lora v. United States, No. 22-49:

• From Courthouse News Service, “Supreme Court seems split over Bronx drug dealer’s sentence in rival’s murder“
• From SCOTUSblog, “Court seems reluctant to extend ban on concurrent sentences in Armed Career Criminal Act“

Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576:

• From Bloomberg Law, “Most Justices Skeptical of Retrial Claim in Wrong Venue Case“
• From SCOTUSblog, “Venue is a platypus, a mixed-up animal” 

Samia v. United States, No. 22-196:

• From the New York Times, “Supreme Court Considers a Mercenary’s Confession and the Confrontation Clause“
• From SCOTUSblog, “Justices search for a clear rule for confessions in joint trials” 

Though I have not really followed any of these cases all that closely, I am still prepared to provide an “over/under” betting line at 2.5 wins for federal criminal defendants from this week’s SCOTUS cases.  It seems the federal criminal defendant has a pretty good shot of prevailing in Hansen and Lora, but probably not in Smith, and Samia probably should be viewed as a toss up.  But perhaps folks who have followed these cases more closely will have a wiser take.