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
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked whether all of the crimes listed require mens rea and whether DUI does not.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Leondra R. Kruger, ms. Kruger argued that the statute must be comparable, referencing the Court’s decision in James.
According to Petitioner, ms. Katze argued that the Government’s interpretation offers no limiting principle and would encompass any offense presenting a serious potential risk of injury to another.
Respondent Position
The Government contended that under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) arson includes conduct where fire is set with willful disregard for the likelihood of damage, not only intentional arson.
What happened at oral argument
Oral argument began at 11:09 a.m. before the Supreme Court.
Justice Scalia asked whether all listed crimes require mens rea and DUI does not.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether arson liability is limited to intentional arson or also includes negligent arson.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens inquired about the interpretation of the word “otherwise” and whether it defines the risk of physical injury.
Justice Ginsburg asked what conduct would fit the description “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
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.
- 120725d9793ada960cd4-r1-9c38e4433ee74063.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.