Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Borden v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Borden v. United States
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argument: November 3, 2020
Decided: June 10, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Elena Kagan • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Neil Gorsuch
Concurring
Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Amy Coney Barrett

Borden v. United States is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 3, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term.

In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a reckless offense cannot qualify as a "violent felony" if it only requires a mens rea of recklessness–a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Charles Borden, Jr. pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, relying on the 6th Circuit Court's decision in United States v. Verwiebe (2017) sentenced Borden to nine years and seven months of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Borden objected to his sentence, arguing the district court's application of Verwiebe to his case violated due process protections. On appeal, the 6th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling.[2] Borden petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned the "use of force" clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act.
  • The question presented: Does the "use of force" clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the "ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?[3]
  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • November 3, 2020: Oral argument was heard.
    • March 2, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • July 24, 2019: Charles Borden, Jr., the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 25, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the ruling of the Eastern District of Tennessee.
    • April 17, 2018: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced Borden under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

    Background

    In 2017, Charles Borden, Jr., was caught with a pistol during a traffic stop. He pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon. Borden had three previous Tennessee aggravated assault convictions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced him to nine years and seven months of imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).[2]

    Borden objected to his sentence, arguing one of his previous assaults did not qualify as a "crime of violence" under the U.S. sentencing guidelines § 4B1.2(a) because it involved a reckless variant. Click here for a definition of a "crime of violence" under § 4B1.2(a)

    Borden acknowledged that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held in United States v. Verwiebe (2017) that "reckless aggravated assault is a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)'s use-of-force clause." He argued applying Verwiebe to his case violated due process protections because Verwiebe was decided six months after his arrest.[2]

    The Eastern District of Tennessee applied Verwiebe retroactively, classifying Borden as an armed career criminal. Borden then appealed to the 6th Circuit. Borden argued: (1) applying Verwiebe violated his due process protections and (2) Verwiebe was wrongly decided. The 6th Circuit held the application of Verwiebe did not disadvantage Borden and affirmed the district court's ruling.[2]

    In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Borden argued, "In the absence of direction from this Court, a circuit split has developed, and continues to deepen, regarding whether crimes committed recklessly are sufficient to trigger the fifteen-year mandatory minimum of the ACCA." Borden also argued the differing application of sentencing guidelines across circuits violated due process.

    § 4B1.2(a)

    U.S. sentencing guidelines § 4B1.2(a) reads:[4]

    “ The term “crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that—


    (1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or

    (2) is murder, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, a forcible sex offense, robbery, arson, extortion, or the use or unlawful possession of a firearm described in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) or explosive material as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 841(c).[5]

    		”

    18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)

    The Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), reads:[6]

    “ The term "violent felony" means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or carrying of a firearm, knife, or destructive device that would be punishable by imprisonment for such term if committed by an adult, that—

    (i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.[5]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    Questions presented:
    “ Does the "use of force" clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the "ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    In a 5-4 opinion, the court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a reckless offense cannot qualify as a "violent felony" if it only requires a mens rea of recklessness–a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote:[1]

    “ The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. §924(e), mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for persons found guilty of illegally possessing a gun who have three or more prior convictions for a “violent felony.” The question here is whether a criminal offense can count as a “violent felony” if it requires only a mens rea of recklessness—a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge. We hold that a reckless offense cannot so qualify.


    ... Offenses with a mens rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under ACCA. They do not require, as ACCA does, the active employment of force against another person. And they are not the stuff of armed career criminals. The judgment below is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.[1]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:

    “ This case forces us to choose between aggravating a past error and committing a new one. I must choose the former. Although I am “reluctant to magnify the burdens that our [erroneous] jurisprudence imposes,” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 610 (2002) (Scalia, J., concurring), I conclude that the particular provision at issue here does not encompass petitioner’s conviction for reckless aggravated assault, even though the consequences of today’s judgment are at odds with the larger statutory scheme. The need to make this choice is yet another consequence of the Court’s vagueness-doctrine cases like Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015).


    ... I hesitate to give petitioner the benefit of Johnson, because his crime is a “violent felony” as Congress defined the term. Indeed, in other contexts, I have resisted exacerbating similar errors. See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 518–520 (2011) (dissenting opinion) (declining to apply this Court’s erroneous holding that the Sentencing Guidelines are never mandatory). Yet I reluctantly conclude that I must accept Johnson in this case because to do otherwise would create further confusion and division about whether state laws prohibiting reckless assault satisfy the elements clause. 3 See Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421, 450–451 (2013) (THOMAS, J., concurring). I therefore concur in the judgment.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett.[1]

    In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “ In my view, the Court’s decision disregards bedrock principles and longstanding terminology of criminal law, misconstrues ACCA’s text, and waves away the Court’s own recent precedent. The Court’s decision overrides Congress’s judgment about the danger posed by recidivist violent felons who unlawfully possess firearms and threaten further violence. I respectfully dissent.


    ... In sum, the text of ACCA’s use-of-force clause encompasses reckless offenses, such as reckless assault and reckless homicide. Contrary to the plurality’s conclusion today, the phrase “against the person of another” reflects a centuries-old term of art for classifying crimes and has zero to do with mens rea. Even setting aside that longstanding usage, the plurality’s interpretation of the phrase “use of physical force against the person of another” fails as a matter of ordinary meaning and precedent. I respectfully dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2020-2021

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[8]

    The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

    The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Borden v. United States, decided June 10, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, United States v. Borden, decided April 25, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Borden v. United States - Questions presented," accessed March 3, 2020
    4. ↑ United States Sentencing Commission, "Guidelines Manual," accessed March 3, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "18 U.S. Code § 924.Penalties," accessed March 3, 2020
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed November 9, 2020
    8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court," accessed April 20, 2015
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Borden_v._United_States&oldid=9117369"