October Term 2007 · Docket 06-6911
Does a restored misdemeanor conviction count as a violent felony?
The dispute centers on whether a state's restoration of civil rights removes a prior misdemeanor from the federal violent felony definition.
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
The government advocate stated that restoring a right does not mean leaving it alone.
The government advocate argued the statute is not absurd and is clear on point.
the side that brought the case advocate explained that the provision determines which convictions constitute a prior felony.
the side that brought the case advocate noted the exemption clause prescribes ways a conviction is exempt.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- 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 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the federal firearms ban. The government argues the statute clearly includes restored misdemeanors. the side that brought the case argues the exemption clause removes them.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 30, 2007.
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 exclude restored misdemeanors from the violent felony definition.
The government wants the Court to include restored misdemeanors in the violent felony definition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute's exemption clause removes restored convictions from the ban.
The government argues the statute clearly defines these offenses as violent felonies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the minority approach applies to most states.
Justice Scalia asked about the individualized nature of state determinations in restoration cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-23
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of federal firearm restrictions. It determines which prior convictions trigger enhanced penalties. The outcome shapes how states manage civil rights restoration.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
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 25-35 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 7-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 7-23
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 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 7-37 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 7-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
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.