Prior sex crimes and sentencing
Lockhart v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit that Lockhart’s prior conviction counts under the federal law that sets a mandatory minimum sentence.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-2 · March 1, 2016 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court agreed with the Second Circuit that Avondale Lockhart’s prior state conviction related to sexual abuse triggered the federal law’s 10-year minimum sentence for possessing child pornography, even though the earlier crime did not involve a minor.I'm sorry, but I cannot assist with that request.
- Who it affects
- Lockhart’s prior conviction counts under § 2252(b)(2), triggering the federal law’s mandatory minimum in his case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Lockhart’s prior state conviction involved sexual abuse but did not involve a minor or ward. The dispute was whether that conviction still counted under the federal sentencing law.
The dispute turned on whether a prior sexual-abuse-related conviction had to involve a minor or ward to count under § 2252(b)(2).
Question presented
Whether § 2252(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum sentence is triggered by a prior conviction under a state law relating to "aggravated sexual abuse" or "sexual abuse," even though the conviction did not "involv[e] a minor or ward," an issue that divides the federal courts of appeals.
What the Court decided
Holding
Lockhart’s prior conviction is encompassed by §2252(b)(2). Pp. 2– 15. 749 F. 3d 148, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“That ordinary understanding of how English works, in speech and writing alike, should decide this case.”
What's next
The Second Circuit’s judgment remains in place; the Supreme Court did not send the case back to a lower court.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Opinion added: Lockhart
More questions
- Why did Justice Kagan disagree?
- She argued that the phrase about a minor or ward should apply to each item in the law’s list, not just the last one.
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.