October Term 2007 · Docket 06-11543
Does drunk driving count as a violent felony for sentencing?
The dispute centers on whether a drunk driving conviction qualifies as a violent felony under federal law.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Katze argued that the issue is whether DWI is a violent felony for sentencing.
Ms. Kruger stated that drunk driving endangers lives by its very nature.
Justice Breyer compared burglary and drunk driving to test the risk standard.
Justice Ginsburg noted that all listed crimes present a serious risk of injury.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-51
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case asks if a drunk driving offense fits the legal definition of a violent felony. This classification changes the possible prison sentence for the defendant.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 15, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the court to reject the violent felony label for drunk driving.
The government wants the court to accept the violent felony label for drunk driving.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that drunk driving lacks the specific intent to harm required for a violent felony.
The government argues that drunk driving inherently creates a serious risk of physical injury to others.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if vehicular homicide fits the definition of a crime risking physical injury.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether the legal canon of ejusdem generis applies to the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-51
Why it matters
The outcome determines the statutory sentencing range for defendants with prior drunk driving convictions. It defines the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act. It impacts how courts classify offenses involving risk rather than intent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 21-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 21-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 7-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-41 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-43 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 49-51 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 49-51
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 35-7 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 35-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-9 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.