Marsh v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Marsh's case, leaving the Fourth Circuit's ruling in place without deciding the Armed Career Criminal Act question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · June 1, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court denied Marcus Marsh’s petition for review, leaving the Fourth Circuit’s judgment against him in place. The petition concerned whether a prior state conviction could be used to increase a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
- Who it affects
- The refusal applied to Marsh: his sentence challenge received no Supreme Court review, and the order did not decide whether his prior conviction counts as a violent felony under the Act.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Armed Career Criminal Act can increase a federal sentence based on certain prior convictions, and Marsh's petition involved a state drug statute listing several ways to violate it.
Question presented
Whether the “categorical approach” for determining whether a prior conviction is a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), requires a court to consider the “realistic probability” that the state would apply the statute to conduct that does not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. The record shows no further Supreme Court step and no ruling on the underlying legal question.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- What question did the Court leave undecided in Marsh?
- It did not decide whether courts must consider a realistic chance that the state would apply the drug statute to conduct without physical force when classifying Marsh's prior conviction.
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.