On November 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts narrowed the mail and wire fraud charges against four university athletic coaches (the “Defendants”) in United States v. Ernst, et al., one of the “Varsity Blues” cases in which coaches, parents of prospective students, and others are alleged to have improperly influenced university admissions decisions. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kelly v. United States, which rejected an expansive interpretation of the meaning of “property” under federal fraud statutes in the context of the “Bridgegate” scandal, the Ernst court agreed with the Defendants that the stated object of their alleged fraud—admission to colleges and universities—did not constitute “property” as required by the mail and wire fraud statutes. This decision follows a line of recent cases in which defendants have tested the scope of Kelly’s holding by challenging the government’s theory of the purported monetary or property interest at issue. In several cases, courts have dismissed charges where the government’s theory of “property” was deemed too expansive or novel. It remains to be seen whether these decisions will result in a shift in how the federal government decides to charge alleged fraudulent conduct in certain cases, including whether it will seek to rely on alternate criminal statutes.