This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (William C. Ingram), petitioner argued that “brandish” should be defined as displaying a firearm to intimidate, includes a mens‑rea element, and therefore must be proved as an element of the offense rather than treated merely as a sentencing enhancement.
According to Petitioner (William C. Ingram), petitioner also contended that the statutory increase of the mandatory minimum for brandishing from five to seven years represents a 40 % rise, and that the penalty for discharging a firearm doubles, highlighting the severity of the enhanced sentencing.
Respondent argued that before the amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) judges had no sentencing discretion, and that Congress changed the law to treat the conduct as a more serious crime.
Justice asked whether the Court could apply the Apprendi rule to the case.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there is a rational distinction between adding two years at the top of a sentence and subtracting two years at the bottom.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked if that is the implication of Apprendi.
- [1] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 4
- [2] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 5
- [3] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 33
- [4] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 6
- [5] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 37
- [6] ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdf, p. 39
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner
According to Petitioner (William C. Ingram), petitioner argued that “brandish” should be defined as displaying a firearm to intimidate, includes a mens‑rea element, and therefore must be proved as an element of the offense rather than treated merely as a sentencing enhancement.
According to Petitioner (William C. Ingram), petitioner also contended that the statutory increase of the mandatory minimum for brandishing from five to seven years represents a 40 % rise, and that the penalty for discharging a firearm doubles, highlighting the severity of the enhanced sentencing.
Respondent
Respondent argued that before the amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) judges had no sentencing discretion, and that Congress changed the law to treat the conduct as a more serious crime.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked whether the Court could apply the Apprendi rule to the case.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether there is a rational distinction between adding two years at the top of a sentence and subtracting two years at the bottom.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked if that is the implication of Apprendi.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ce8277d17669e3394271-r1-2dba323396db574a.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.