On Tuesday, the Supreme Court kicked off its first day of arguments for the fall. One of those cases heard by the justices dealt with federal bank fraud. The court had to decide whether the law means a person could be convicted of fraud for only deceiving the bank, or if he had to actually cheat money from the bank, according to BuzzFeed. Sounds pretty boring, right? We sure think so. But Justice Stephen Breyer has our back.
The lawyers of Lawrence Shaw, a California man convicted of stealing more than $300,000 from a businessman's Bank of America account, argued that Shaw's conviction should be overturned since Bank of America didn't actually lose any money because of the scam, according to the New York Daily News.
Breyer debated with the lawyer about whether or not having insurance on something changes the intent of the theft. That's when Breyer started turning it up. "Even Kardashian's thief, if there is one, believes that all that jewelry is insured. Indeed over-insured. So it's not theft?" Breyer asked.
The lawyer tried to defend Shaw again before Breyer cut back in with the Kardashians. "I'm asking you, if the local person comes to the door and says, dear Miss Kardashian, I am your local jewelry cleaner. Please give me your jewelry. She does." Then Breyer wondered, is that not fraud? He seemed to think that it was.
The Court's decision—about Shaw, not Kardashian—will drop later in the term.