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

Shular v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Shular v. United States
Term: 2019
Important Dates
Argument: January 21, 2020
Decided: February 26, 2020
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Brett Kavanaugh


Shular v. United States is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 21, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

The court affirmed the 11th Circuit's decision in a unanimous ruling, holding the ACCA's "serious drug offense" definition refers to conduct and does not "call for a comparison to a generic offense." Justice Ginsburg wrote, "The 'serious drug offense' definition requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the federal statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses."[1] Click here for more information

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Eddie Shular pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and to controlled substances possession. Shular was classified as an armed career criminal because of six previous drug convictions in Florida. He objected to the classification in court, arguing his previous convictions were not "serious drug offenses" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Northern District of Florida overruled the objection and sentenced Shular to concurrent terms of 15 years in prison on each count. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court affirmed the district court's ruling. Shular appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the 11th Circuit was wrong not to have used a categorical approach to interpret "serious drug offenses" under the ACCA and pointing to a circuit split regarding the determination of serious drug offenses under the ACCA.[2]
  • The issue: Whether the determination of a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a "violent felony" under the Act?[3]
  • The outcome: The court affirmed the 11th Circuit's decision in a unanimous ruling, holding the ACCA's "serious drug offense" definition refers to conduct and does not "call for a comparison to a generic offense." Justice Ginsburg wrote, "The 'serious drug offense' definition requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the federal statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses."[1]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • February 26, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 11th Circuit's decision.
    • January 21, 2020: Oral argument
    • June 28, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • November 8, 2018: Eddie Shular, the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • September 5, 2018: The 11th Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Florida's ruling.

    Background

    Eddie Shular pleaded guilty to charges of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and to possession of cocaine and cocaine base. Shular was classified as an armed career criminal because of six previous drug convictions in Florida. He filed a written objection to the classification, arguing his previous drug convictions were not "serious drug offenses" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida overruled Shular's objection and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years in prison on each count. Shular appealed the sentence and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.[2]

    Shular filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the court should use a categorical approach to interpret "serious drug offenses" under the ACCA and that the 11th Circuit erred in not using this approach. Shular wrote, "The question is one of national importance because the rule of the Eleventh, Second, Fifth and District of Columbia Circuits conflicts with the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits with respect to the determination of serious drug offenses under ACCA."[2]

    Armed Career Criminal Act

    The ACCA requires a minimum 15-year sentence for felons convicted of illegal possession of a firearm who have three prior state or federal convictions for a "violent felony" or a "serious drug offense."[4]

    Categorical approach

    Taylor v. United States (1990) required courts to use a categorical approach when applying enhanced sentences by "looking only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions." The case said courts using a categorical approach must look at the modern generic definition of an offense and then decide if the conviction in question applied to the definition.[5]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:

    Question presented:

    Whether the determination of a "serious drug offense" under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a "violent felony under the Act?[3]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, holding the ACCA's "serious drug offense" definition refers to conduct and does not "call for a comparison to a generic offense."[1]

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion.

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote that "we are persuaded that Congress chose" to apply the "serious drug offense" definition of the ACCA "to all offenders who engaged in certain conduct" and not "to all who committed certain generic offenses."[1]

    Justice Ginsburg wrote:

    “ Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)’s text and context leave no doubt that it refers to an offense involving the conduct of 'manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.' Because those terms describe conduct and do not name offenses, a court applying §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) need not delineate the elements of generic offenses.[6] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh wrote separately "to elaborate on why the rule of lenity does not apply" in this case. The court rejected Shular's argument for applying the rule of lenity, which requires a court to apply ambiguous language in criminal law in favor of the defendant.[1][7]

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:

    “ Under this Court’s longstanding precedents, the rule of lenity applies when a court employs all of the traditional tools of statutory interpretation and, after doing so, concludes that the statute still remains grievously ambiguous, meaning that the court can make no more than a guess as to what the statute means.[6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Supreme Court of the United States, Shular v. United States, decided February 26, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Shular v. United States: "Petition for a writ of certiorari," accessed July 1, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Shular v. United States: "Questions presented," accessed July 1, 2019
    4. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. 924(e)): An Overview," July 29, 2015
    5. ↑ Office of General Counsel, U.S. Sentencing Commission, "Categorical approach: Primer," July 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ USLegal.com, "Rule of Lenity Law and Legal Definition," accessed February 26, 2020
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed January 27, 2020
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Shular_v._United_States&oldid=9117216"