Justin Rashaad Brown, Petitioner v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a state drug conviction counts as a serious offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act if the drug was on the federal list at the time of the state crime. The Court decided that judges must look backward at the law as it existed when the previous crime was committed, even if the drug was later removed from federal lists. This means older convictions can still trigger much longer mandatory prison sentences today.

This decision ensures that defendants with certain past drug convictions will face a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison for firearm offenses. It affects anyone whose past crimes involved substances that the government later decided were less dangerous or should be removed from the restricted list. For example, a defendant could receive a longer sentence for a past crime involving a substance that is no longer even illegal under federal law.

The case centers on the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a law designed to give harsher penalties to repeat offenders who possess firearms. It highlights a debate over whether sentencing should reflect current medical and legal views on drugs or the views held at the time of the original offense. This ruling reinforces a 'backward-looking' approach to criminal history in federal sentencing.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Gorsuch.

“ACCA requires sentencing courts to examine the law as it was when the defendant violated it.”

“Courts should apply the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense that triggers ACCA’s potential application.”

A past state drug conviction counts toward a longer federal sentence if the drug was federally banned at the time of that original conviction.

Lower courts will now apply this 'backward-looking' rule to all pending cases involving the Armed Career Criminal Act. Defense attorneys may have fewer options to challenge long mandatory sentences based on changes to federal drug lists. Observers will watch to see if Congress updates the law to clarify which drug lists should be used in the future.

The dispute was whether a 'serious drug offense' is defined by the federal drug list from the time of the past crime or the time of the current firearm offense.

Defendants will face 15-year mandatory minimum sentences even if their past drug crimes involved substances that the federal government no longer considers dangerous enough to list.

The Court established a 'backward-looking' approach, meaning sentencing courts must use the drug schedules that were in effect when the defendant committed the prior state-level crime.

Lower courts must now use this interpretation to calculate sentences for defendants who qualify as armed career criminals based on their prior state drug records.

The ruling shows the Court's preference for strict statutory interpretation over the 'rule of lenity,' which usually suggests that unclear laws should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.