⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit considers Kristin Mitchell's challenge to her conviction for attempted harboring under federal immigration law. She gave three men a place to stay in Shelby, Montana, and bailed one out after a drunken-driving arrest. Prosecutors said the men were in the United States unlawfully; Mitchell described two of them as political asylees. The appeal first concerns mens rea, the required criminal state of mind. Harboring requires knowledge or reckless disregard that the person is here in violation of immigration law, and an intent to violate the law. Mitchell argues that the evidence did not prove the required mental state. You will hear Rule twenty-nine, the procedure for seeking an acquittal because the evidence cannot support a conviction. The other issue comes from voir dire, the questioning of prospective jurors. A prospective juror recalled a newspaper article and said something similar had happened before. Mitchell says that remark unfairly hinted at her past; the government calls it ambiguous and says the judge's instructions protected the jury's impartiality. The district court denied her request for a new trial. Clark Mathews will argue for Mitchell, seeking an acquittal or a new trial.

USA v. Mitchell (No. 25-7799) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026.