Knowing a drug is controlled
Stephen Dominick McFadden v. United States
In brief
The Court required prosecutors to prove McFadden knew he was dealing with a federally regulated substance, wiped out the Fourth Circuit's ruling, and sent the case back.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 18, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Stephen McFadden challenged his conviction for selling a substance treated by federal law like a controlled drug, arguing that the government had to prove he knew it was an analogue.
- Who it affects
- In federal analogue prosecutions, prosecutors must prove the accused knew they were dealing with a substance regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or the Analogue Act.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled prosecutors had to prove he knew he was dealing with a substance regulated by federal drug law, wiped out the Fourth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back to that court (remanded).
Federal law treats some drug analogues like controlled substances.
Question presented
To convict someone under the Controlled Substances Analogue Act, does the government need to prove that the defendant knew the substance was an analogue to a controlled substance?
What the Court decided
Holding
When a controlled substance is an analogue, §841(a)(1) requires the Government to establish that the defendant knew he was dealing with a substance regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or Analogue Act. 753 F. 3d 432, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 8joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Robertswrote separately
What's next
The Fourth Circuit must consider McFadden's case again under the Supreme Court's rule. The Supreme Court did not decide the final outcome of his conviction.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Opinion added: McFadden
More questions
- What did Chief Justice Roberts say separately?
- He agreed with the result but said knowing a substance's identity may not prove someone knew it was regulated, especially for lesser-known drugs.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.