Shular v. United States

Background

A Florida man, Eddie Lee Shular, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and had multiple prior state cocaine convictions. Under a federal law that imposes a 15-year minimum sentence when a defendant has three prior “serious drug offense” convictions, the District Court applied the enhancement and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, creating a split among appeals courts about how to decide which prior drug convictions qualify.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the law requires courts to compare a prior state conviction to a single “generic” drug offense or simply to ask whether the state conviction’s elements involve certain conduct (manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent). The Justices concluded the statute refers to conduct, not named generic offenses. The opinion explained that the word “involving” points to conduct and contrasted the wording with a neighboring clause that uses “is” to name offenses like burglary. The Court declined to apply the rule of lenity because it found no surviving ambiguity after ordinary interpretation.

Real world impact

The decision allows federal courts to count prior state drug convictions toward the 15-year enhancement when the conviction’s elements show the specified conduct, even if states use different offense names. The opinion affirms the Eleventh Circuit and resolves the circuit split on this interpretive method. The Court did not resolve a separate argument about whether knowledge of illegality is required, and it expressly did not address that question.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh concurred and wrote to explain why the rule of lenity does not apply unless a statute remains grievously ambiguous after applying traditional interpretive tools.