The question
Whether a single act that violates two subsections of the federal firearm statute can support two separate convictions.
Barrett v. United States
What the Court decided
The Court held that a single act cannot produce two convictions under two subsections of the federal firearm-crime statute, because Congress did not clearly authorize stacking convictions that way for one act. One act that violates both provisions may yield only one conviction. The part of the appeals court's judgment that allowed two convictions was reversed. No justice dissented.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
When one act violates two subsections of the firearm statute, Congress did not clearly authorize punishing it as two separate crimes. Absent a clear statement that it intended to stack convictions for a single act, the rule of lenity and the statute's structure mean one act supports only one conviction. The appeals court erred in allowing two.
Concurring in part
Gorsuch, writing alone
Gorsuch joined the Court's opinion in part and wrote separately as to the remaining part.
How we know · 3 sourced claims
The Court held that a single act cannot support two convictions under both subsections of the firearm statute.
Source: syllabus, Held, at 24-5774
The Court reasoned Congress did not clearly authorize stacking convictions for one act.
Source: opinion of the Court (Jackson, J.)
Jackson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court; Gorsuch, J., concurred in part. No justice dissented.
Source: syllabus, lineup