Descamps v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Jan 7, 2013
|Jun 20, 2013||8-1||Kagan||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the NACDL as amicus curiae in this case.
Holding: Sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach to a federal defendant when the crime of which the defendant was previously convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 20, 2013. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
- Opinion analysis: When is a burglary not a burglary? (Daniel Richman)
- Details: Descamps v. United States (Tejinder Singh)
- Argument recap: Court struggles with classifying prior burglary convictions across states and courtrooms (Daniel Richman)
- Argument preview: When is a burglary a “burglary”? (Daniel Richman)
- Court grants two more cases (Lyle Denniston)