The question
Whether a state drug conviction counts as a "serious drug offense" predicate under the Armed Career Criminal Act when it involved a drug that was on the federal schedules when the defendant committed the offense but was later removed.
Brown v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the Third Circuit. A state drug conviction counts as an Armed Career Criminal Act predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that offense, not at some later point. The Court adopted the Government's reading that the federal and state drug definitions must match when the defendant committed the state crime, resting on ACCA's backward-looking focus on a defendant's criminal history and on the statute's plain language.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett
A state drug offense qualifies as an ACCA serious-drug-offense predicate if the state and federal drug definitions matched when the defendant committed the state crime. ACCA gauges what a defendant's history of criminal activity says about culpability and dangerousness, and prior cases require courts to examine the law as it was when the defendant violated it. The statute's plain language and objectives support treating state offenses involving a federally controlled substance like federal offenses under the Controlled Substances Act, so a later change to the drug schedules does not undo the predicate.
Dissenting in part
Jackson, joined by Kagan, Gorsuch
Jackson dissented from the Court's holding that the relevant time for matching the state and federal drug definitions is when the defendant committed the state offense. Kagan joined the dissent in full, and Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, and III.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that offense.
Source: syllabus, Held
ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum on defendants convicted of illegally possessing a firearm who have three previous convictions for a serious drug offense.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court adopted the Government's interpretation that the federal and state drug definitions must match when the defendant committed the state crime.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined in full by Kagan and joined by Gorsuch as to Parts I, II, and III.
Source: syllabus, lineup