Romero-Salgado v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court declined to hear the petition, so it did not decide whether recklessness meets the guideline’s physical-force requirement.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- The case concerned whether a prior offense committed recklessly can count as a “crime of violence” under a federal sentencing guideline.
- Who it affects
- The denial left Romero-Salgado without a Supreme Court decision on whether the guideline covers the prior reckless offense.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court granted Romero-Salgado relief by vacating the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and returning the case for reconsideration in light of Borden v. United States, which held that reckless conduct does not satisfy a similar federal “use of force” definition.
The dispute came from the Ninth Circuit and focused on how a federal sentencing guideline defines a “crime of violence.”
Question presented
Whether the "use of physical force" against the person of another, as used in the definition of "crime of violence" in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, cmt. n.1(B)(iii) (2008), requires a mens rea greater than recklessness?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. It issued no decision on the guideline question.
Documents
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
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.