Lesh v. United States Brief: The Supreme Court Should Abolish the Petty Offense Exception to Constitutionally Required Jury Trials

Matthew Cavedon

Charged with the misdemeanor of unlawfully operating a vehicle on federal lands, social media influencer and outdoorsman David Lesh requested a jury trial. The government successfully opposed that request and the case was tried by a US magistrate judge, who convicted Lesh and then imposed the maximum fine of $5,025 and 160 hours of community service.

The district court affirmed, though it noted that but for the Supreme Court’s recognition of a “petty offense exception,” Lesh’s argument that he was constitutionally entitled to be tried by a jury was “not unpersuasive.” The Tenth Circuit likewise affirmed, with two members of the panel noting that the petty offense exception arose in “disregard of the text of Article III and the Sixth Amendment” and cautioning that it may well be “incompatible with the original public understanding of the Constitution.”

The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review Lesh’s case and abolish the petty offense exception. The Constitution’s text explicitly commands that the trial of “all” federal crimes be by jury, and it underscores that command by repeating in the Sixth Amendment that “in all criminal prosecutions” the defendant has the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. 

The petty offense exception lacks any historical foundation. Eliminating it is not only feasible but vital to the rule of law.

The Emory Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Program (ELSSCAP) assisted the Cato Institute in preparing this amicus brief.