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
The case centers on how the rule of lenity applies to a mandatory‑minimum sentencing provision and on the meaning of the term “felony drug offense.”
Background and question before the Court
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), petitioner Burgess argues that the statute must be read narrowly so that only defendants with a prior felony drug conviction trigger the 20‑year mandatory minimum.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Burgess)
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the rule of lenity requires statutes to be clear and unambiguous.
According to Jeffrey L. Fisher (Petitioner), he argues that a state misdemeanor should not count as a “felony drug offense” for the mandatory‑minimum purpose.
According to Ms. Saharsky, ms. Saharsky states that the term “felony drug offense” has only the meaning that Congress gave to it.
Respondent (United States)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 10:02 a.m.
Justice Kennedy asked whether the Court’s prior decision in Granderson applied here.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito inquired about Congress’s intent with the 1994 amendment.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg questioned whether the definition in §802(13) was ever applicable.
Justice Breyer asked whether Congress intended the new definition to exclude certain states.
Chief Justice Roberts asked why Congress incorporated the problem into the definition of “felony drug offense.”
Justice Scalia asked how many statutes require a clear statement from Congress.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the oral argument and thanked counsel.
- [1] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 1
- [2] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 3
- [3] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 6
- [4] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 14
- [5] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 17
- [6] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 22
- [7] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 35
- [8] 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdf, p. 38
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.
- 290378409421af6f2310-r1-bff4323f9bd22670.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.