Abouammo Argued: Venue and Limitations Questions in Saudi Spying Case

The Court heard oral argument on March 30, 2026, with Tobias Loss-Eaton arguing for petitioner and Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang for the government. The argument session is the natural focal point for this case, arriving after six amicus briefs signaled that the questions presented carry weight beyond the individual defendant.

The government also filed a criminal information without a grand jury indictment and without a signed waiver from Abouammo, then invoked 18 U.S.C. § 3288 to extend the limitations period.

The two questions presented address distinct structural features of federal criminal procedure. On venue, the Court must decide whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, based solely on the fact that a statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects in that district. That standard, if affirmed, would give prosecutors broad discretion in forum selection. On the limitations question, the Court must determine whether an information filed without a waiver of indictment qualifies as an “information charging a felony” under § 3288, a reading that would allow the government to unilaterally toll the clock. The Oyez docket reflects the case’s procedural complexity.

Both questions have practical reach well beyond this defendant. A ruling that tightens venue requirements would constrain prosecutorial forum-shopping in cases involving diffuse or digital conduct. A ruling limiting § 3288’s scope would restrict the government’s ability to extend limitations periods without grand jury participation, reinforcing the Fifth Amendment’s indictment guarantee in felony cases.