The 6-3 United States Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Brown also claims that his reading is required by United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110, which says that when the law changes while a case is in progress, the case...
Justice Alito continued in relevant part: Petitioners various other arguments are unpersuasive. Relying on the so-called reference canon, Jackson claims that ACCA “incorporates the schedules ‘as they exist whenever a question under ACCA arises.” Brief of Petitioner...
Justice Alito continued in relevant part: The Government’s interpretation would treat state offenses “involving a controlled substance (as defined in the CSA)” like those federal offenses “under the CSA.” Petitioners’ interpretations, by contrast, would treat those...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Jackson’s presentence report identified several prior Florida convictions, including convictions in 1998 and 2004 for possession and distribution of cocaine. In 2015, the Federal Government amended the federal...
On May 23, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases captioned Brown v. United States. The principal issue before the Court concerned the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act to state drug convictions that occurred before amendments...
Justice Thomas concluded with the following in relevant part: ATF responds that a shooter is less physically involved with operating a bump-stock equipped rifle than operating the Model 37. It explains that once a shooter pulls the rifle’s trigger a single time, the...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it would not do so “automatically.” Section 5845(b) specifies the precise action that must...
Justice Thomas continued in relevant part: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1)...
On June 14, 2024, The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Garland v. Cargill. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether the ATF could classify a bump stock as a machine gun, thereby making bump stocks illegal. Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3...
On May 30, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Hudson County case of State v. M.F.L. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-8 concerned whether the framework for Domestic Violence Restraining Orders can apply to motions to modify Sex Offender Restraining...