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 Kagan asked whether a statute that covers only regular cars falls outside the scope of the law.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh suggested that the practical difference between buildings and structures might be relevant to the case.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States (Petitioner), according to United States (Petitioner), petitioner argued that the statutes do not encompass the conduct at issue.
Petitioner contended that Congress would have passed the statute to address a small number of cases, affecting the ACCA burglary definition.
Petitioner argued that the residual clause was intended to expand the scope of the statute to cover many burglary statutes.
Petitioner asserted that the government did not claim all statutes would be invalidated if Mathis were decided.
Government
Government counsel argued that the statistics support their position.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kagan asked whether a statute covering regular cars falls outside the scope of the law.
Justice Kagan asked whether statutes covering vehicles used for business activities are included.
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.
- 2dc375619f5513df5526-r1-852c732b76e0c61d.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.