SCOTUS Today: Brown v. United States

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Brown v. United States. The decision concerns two different ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) appeals. While not straightforwardly about immigration, ACCA decisions often become the basis for future crimmigration law as both rely on the same categorical approach.

Here is the introduction, written by Justice Alito and joined by SCOTUS Justices Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett:

These cases concern the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to state drug convictions that occurred before recent technical amendments to the federal drug schedules. ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory mini- mum sentence on defendants who are convicted for the illegal possession of a firearm and have a criminal history that is thought to demonstrate a propensity for violence. These defendants are subject to ACCA’s enhanced penalty if, among other things, they have “three previous convictions” for “a serious drug offense.” 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(1). For a state crime to qualify as a “serious drug offense,” it must carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years’ imprisonment, and it must “involv[e] . . . a controlled substance . . . as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act” (CSA). §§924(e)(1), (2)(A)(ii). The CSA, in turn, includes five schedules of controlled substances and provides that these schedules must be updated each year by the Attorney General. 84 Stat. 1245, 1247, 21 U. S. C. §§811, 812.

The two cases now before us present the question whether a state crime constitutes a “serious drug offense” if it involved a drug that was on the federal schedules when the defendant possessed or trafficked in it but was later removed. We hold that such an offense qualifies.

Here is the summary of the government’s position, ultimately adopted by the court:

The Government argues that a prior state drug conviction qualifies if the federal and state definitions of the relevant drug matched when the defendant committed the state crime. Therefore, even if the federal and state definitions are different when a defendant violates the federal felon-in- possession law or is sentenced under that law, earlier state convictions that occurred during the period when the fed- eral and state definitions were the same nevertheless qual- ify as “serious drug offense[s].”

Finally, the short conclusion:

…we hold that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.

-KitJ