Brown v. United States
Headline: Court affirms that past state drug convictions can trigger a 15-year federal gun enhancement if the drug was on federal schedules when the state crime occurred, increasing sentences for some people with old drug records.
Holding: The Court held that a prior state drug conviction counts toward ACCA’s 15-year firearm sentencing enhancement if the drug was on the federal drug schedules when the state conviction occurred.
- Makes past state drug convictions count toward a federal 15-year gun enhancement.
- Forces courts to check historical federal drug schedules for sentencing.
- Increases sentences for people with qualifying older state drug records.
Summary
Background
Justin Rashaad Brown and Eugene Jackson were separately prosecuted for being felons in possession of firearms. Each had earlier state felony drug convictions: Brown had multiple Pennsylvania convictions for possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, and Jackson had Florida convictions for cocaine possession and distribution. After those state convictions, the federal drug schedules were changed—Congress narrowed the federal marijuana definition in 2018 and the federal government removed a radioactive cocaine derivative in 2015—so both men argued their prior state drug convictions no longer counted for a federal 15-year enhancement tied to a criminal history of serious drug offenses.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether federal and state drug definitions must match at the time of the state crime, at the time of the federal firearms offense, or at federal sentencing. The Justices relied on prior decisions that take a backward-looking view of prior convictions and on the statute’s text, which ties a “serious drug offense” to the Controlled Substances Act. The Court concluded the match must be judged at the time of the state conviction. The majority explained that ACCA targets defendants’ past criminal history to judge future dangerousness, and a past conviction does not disappear simply because the federal schedules changed later.
Real world impact
As a result, many old state drug convictions still count toward ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimum when the state crime involved a drug that was federally scheduled at the time. Sentencing courts may need to check historical federal drug schedules, and some defendants will continue to face the higher mandatory sentence. This is a definitive interpretation of the statute and will guide federal sentencing going forward.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Kagan and parts by Justice Gorsuch) dissented, arguing the statute’s reference to the Controlled Substances Act should be read to incorporate the federal drug schedules in effect when the federal firearms offense occurred, and raising textual and fairness concerns.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?