Descamps v. United States

Editor's Note :

Descamps v. United States

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-9540	9th Cir.	Jan 7, 2013 Tr.Aud.	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.

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)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 19 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 27, 2012)
Apr 18 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 29, 2012.
May 21 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including June 28, 2012.
Jun 28 2012	Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Jul 12 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Jul 17 2012	Supplemental brief of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed. (Distributed)
Aug 31 2012	Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
Sep 11 2012	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps.
Oct 3 2012	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.
Oct 5 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2012.
Oct 5 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 3, 2012.
Oct 18 2012	Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps.
Oct 24 2012	Joint appendix filed. (Volume 1 of 2) (Statement of costs filed)
Oct 24 2012	Brief of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed.
Oct 29 2012	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. Dan B. Johnson, Esquire, of Spokane, Washington, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner.
Oct 29 2012	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Oct 31 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 7, 2013.
Oct 31 2012	Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
Nov 16 2012	CIRCULATED.
Nov 26 2012	Motion to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.
Dec 3 2012	Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
Dec 5 2012	Record recieved from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 box).
Dec 5 2012	Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Washingon is electronic. There is 1 sealed envelope received from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit) that is a part of U.S.D.C. record.
Dec 27 2012	Reply of petitioner Matthew Robert Descamps filed. (Distributed)
Jan 7 2013	Argued. For petitioner: Dan B. Johnson, Spokane, Wash. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Benjamin J. Horwich, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Jun 20 2013	Judgment REVERSED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kenendy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Jul 3 2013	Petition for Rehearing filed.
Aug 8 2013	DISTRIBUTED.
Aug 30 2013	Rehearing DENIED.
Aug 30 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Sep 4 2013	Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Friday, the justices met for their February 15 conference and agreed to hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York during the second week of the April sitting.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 10

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	10
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73