Shular v. United States

Shular v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 2020
Decided February 26, 2020
Full case nameEddie Lee Shular v. United States
Docket no.18-6662
Citations589 U.S. (more)
140 S. Ct. 779
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Shular, 736 F. App'x 876 (11th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 2773 (2019).
Holding
The definition of "serious drug offense" in the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii)) requires only that the state statute involve conduct specified in the federal statute; it does not require that the state offense match a generic offense crafted by a federal court.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
Laws applied
Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984

Shular v. United States, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, the definition of “serious drug offense” only requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute.[1] Unlike other provisions of the ACCA, it does not require that state courts develop “generic” version of a crime, which describe the elements of the offense as they are commonly understood, and then compare the crime being charged to that generic version to determine whether the crime qualifies under the ACCA for purposes of penalty enhancement. The decision states that offenses defined under the ACCA are "unlikely names for generic offenses," and are therefore unambiguous. This renders the rule of lenity inapplicable.[2][3][4]

  1. ^ Shular v. United States, No. 18-6662, 589 U.S. ___, slip op. at *2-3 (2020).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Oyez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Litman, Leah (January 14, 2020). "Argument preview: Category is: the categorical approach". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  4. ^ Rubin, Jordan (February 26, 2020). "Justice Department Wins Latest Career Criminal Sentencing Spat". Bloomberg News. Retrieved February 26, 2020.