I haven't had time to read it, but Paroline v. US, which came out today, is an interesting and hard case about causation and burdens of proof. Paroline illegally possessed a pornographic image of Victim as a child. A statute says offenders need to pay restitution. Victim's life was ruined by her knowledge that her image is spread all over the internet. So what should Paroline, the only one of thousands of offenders to be caught, pay? The Roberts dissent says he should pay nothing, because it's too hard to prove what damage is attributable to Paroline. That sounds reasonable to me in practice, but that difficulty is what makes this an interesting case for theorizing.
