Shular v. United States

Background

Eddie Lee Shular pleaded guilty in federal court to gun and drug charges and received a 15-year mandatory sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) after the judge counted prior Florida drug convictions. Those Florida convictions arose under a law that does not make knowledge of illegality a formal element but allows lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the enhanced sentence, and the Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split among courts about how to apply ACCA’s drug-offense definition.

Reasoning

The central question was whether ACCA’s phrase describing a “serious drug offense” requires courts to identify a separate, ordinary or “generic” drug crime and compare elements, or instead to ask whether the state offense necessarily involves certain drug-related conduct. The Court, relying on the statute’s wording and context, concluded the statute describes conduct—“manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute”—rather than names of generic offenses. Because the words describe conduct and contrast with nearby clauses that name offenses, courts need not perform a generic-offense matching exercise. The Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment.

Real world impact

Lower courts must use a conduct-based test when deciding whether past state drug convictions qualify for ACCA enhancement. The decision leaves unresolved whether ACCA requires proof that a defendant knew a substance was illegal; the Court did not address that separate argument.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a short concurrence joining the opinion and added a separate explanation about why the rule of lenity does not apply here, emphasizing limits on lenity’s use.