Erlinger v. United States
Erlinger v. United States | |
Term: 2023 | |
Important Dates | |
Argued: March 27, 2024 Decided: June 21, 2024 | |
Outcome | |
vacated and remanded | |
Vote | |
6-3 | |
Majority | |
Neil Gorsuch • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Amy Coney Barrett | |
Concurring | |
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas | |
Dissenting | |
Brett Kavanaugh • Samuel Alito • Ketanji Brown Jackson |
Erlinger v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 21, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Court on March 27, 2024.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding, "The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes."[1] Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, except for Part III. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion. Click here for more information about the ruling.
The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.
Timeline
The following timeline details key events in this case:
- June 21, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- March 27, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
- November 20, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
- October 4, 2023: Paul Erlinger appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- August 10, 2023: The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Background
In 2018, Paul Erlinger, the petitioner, pleaded guilty to illegally possessing firearms and received a fifteen-year prison sentence. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana applied the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentencing guidelines due to Erlinger's three prior burglary convictions.[3][4][5][6]
Erlinger has objected to the ACCA classification of his case. He argues that the definition of burglary in the federal statute does not match Indiana's definition, making the ACCA guidelines for his sentencing non-applicable.[5] The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit determined that Indiana's definition was not broader than the federal definition.[3][6]
Additionally, Erlinger contended that the burglaries did not occur on separate occasions. He argues that the Sixth Amendment and the Wooden v. United States decision require a jury, rather than a judge, to determine when the events resulting in his prior convictions occurred.[5] The Seventh Circuit disagreed and determined that the government was not obligated to demonstrate that the burglaries occurred on separate occasions to a jury, but rather to a sentencing judge.[3][6][4]
Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984
18 U.S.C. 924(e) states:[7]
“ | (1)In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).[8] | ” |
Questions presented
The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]
Questions presented:
|
Oral argument
Audio
Audio of oral argument:[9]
Transcript
Transcript of oral argument:[10]
Outcome
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court vacated the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding, "The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes."[1] Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion of the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas filed concurring opinions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, except for Part III. Justice Jackson also filed a dissenting opinion.
Opinion
In the court's majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:[1]
“ | This case concerns the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. ACCA imposes lengthy mandatory prison terms on certain defendants who have previously committed three violent felonies or serious drug offenses on separate occasions. The question we face is whether a judge may decide that a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, or whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
” |
—Justice Neil Gorsuch |
Concurring opinions
Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[1]
“ | I join the opinion of the Court because I agree that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a defendant is entitled to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether his predicate offenses were committed on different occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. But as JUSTICE KAVANAUGH explains, violations of that right are subject to harmless error review. See post, at 9–11 (dissenting opinion). The Seventh Circuit should thus consider on remand the Government’s contention that the error here was harmless.[8] | ” |
—Chief Justice John Roberts |
Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]
“ | I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly applies our precedents. ...
|
” |
—Justice Clarence Thomas |
Dissenting opinions
Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, except for Part III.
In his dissent, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]
“ | As relevant here, ACCA imposes a minimum sentence on a defendant who previously was convicted of at least three violent felonies committed on different occasions—and who then, after the three prior violent felony convictions, unlawfully possessed a firearm. In applying ACCA’s minimum sentencing requirement, the Sixth Amendment allows a judge to determine whether the defendant has three or more prior convictions and whether those convictions were for violent felonies. The question in this case is whether the judge may also determine whether the defendant committed those prior crimes on different occasions, or instead whether a jury must do so.
In my view, this Court’s precedents establish that a judge may make the different-occasions determination. Because the Court today concludes that only a jury may make the different-occasions determination, I respectfully dissent.[8] |
” |
—Justice Brett Kavanaugh |
Justice Jackson
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissenting opinion.
In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]
“ | In the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C.§924(e), Congress directed sentencing judges to conduct a “multi-factored” inquiry into “a range of circumstances” to determine whether a particular defendant’s criminal history suggests that he is the sort of “ ‘revolving door’ felo[n]” that ACCA was designed to target. Wooden v. United States, 595 U. S. 360, 369, 375 (2022); see also §924(e)(1). Those kinds of findings have historically been deemed well within the capacity of a sentencing judge. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 243–244 (1998). To-day, the Court concludes that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530U. S. 466 (2000), must be read to suggest otherwise—i.e.,that under Apprendi, for sentencing purposes, facts that relate to a defendant’s prior crimes cannot be determined by judges but instead must be found by juries. I disagree for several reasons, including my overarching view that Apprendi was wrongly decided. Like many jurists and other observers before me, I do not believe that Congress exceeds its constitutional authority when it empowers judges to make factual determinations related to punishment and directs that a particular sentencing result follow from such findings.
|
” |
—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson |
Text of the opinion
Read the full opinion here.
October term 2023-2024
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]
See also
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Erlinger v. United States (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
- SCOTUSblog case file for Erlinger v. United States
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Supreme Court of the United States, Erlinger v. United States, decided June 21, 2024
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States "23-370 ERLINGER V. UNITED STATES: Questions presented," accessed November 27, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Oyez "Erlinger v. United States," November 20, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Supreme Court of the United States "Erlinger v. United States, BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT SUPPORTING PETITIONER," January 3, 2024
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Supreme Court of the United States "Erlinger v. United States, BRIEF FOR PETITIONER," January 3, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana "United States v. Erlinger," August 10, 2023
- ↑ Cornell Law School "18 U.S. Code § 924 - Penalties," accessed February 21, 2024
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 27, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 27, 2024
- ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
|