October Term 2008 · Docket 08-5274
Does a federal sentencing law require intent when a firearm discharges?
The dispute centers on whether a federal sentencing statute requires proof of intent when a firearm discharges during a crime.
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 side that brought the case argued the discharge provision carries an intent requirement.
The government argued the sentencing factor contains no mens rea requirement.
The government stated the statute requires the fact of discharge to be present.
the side that brought the case focused on the element of intent in the statute.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-51
- 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 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-5
- 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 13-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case involves a federal sentencing provision. The provision increases a sentence if a firearm discharges during a crime. The parties disagree on the required mental state. One side argues intent is necessary. The other side argues the statute requires only the fact of discharge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 4, 2009.
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 require proof of intent for the sentencing increase.
The government wants the Court to apply the statute based solely on the fact of discharge.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the statute implies a requirement of intent.
The government argues the statute text contains no mens rea requirement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the government view ignores who discharges the gun.
Justice Scalia questioned the government's position on the specific facts presented by the side that brought the case's counsel.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-5
- 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 13-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
Why it matters
This dispute determines how courts calculate federal sentences. It affects the severity of punishment for firearm-related crimes. It clarifies the role of intent in statutory interpretation. It impacts the consistency of federal sentencing guidelines.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
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 45-51 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-51
- 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 33-43 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-39 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 49-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 49-5
- 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 13-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 13-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 15-21
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 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-43
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.