October Term 2014 · Docket 14-378

Does a drug dealer need to know a substance is a controlled substance to face federal charges?

The dispute centers on the mental state required for a conviction under the Controlled Substances Act.

Official caption
McFadden v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Kevin Russell argued the briefing narrowed the disagreement among the parties.

    Russell stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    Ms. Harrington argued a broader view of knowledge is correct.

    Harrington stated the government need not limit knowledge specifically to drug laws.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests the knowledge element for selling drug analogues.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the conviction overturned.

The government wants the conviction upheld.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the government must prove specific knowledge of the substance's chemical makeup.

The government argues general knowledge of the substance's effects satisfies the legal requirement.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the seller must know the chemical makeup causing the substance to be an analogue.

Justice Ginsburg asked if a supplier stating the substance mimics cocaine satisfies the mental state requirement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the mental state required for federal drug convictions. It sets the standard for proving a defendant knew the substance was illegal. This standard affects how prosecutors build cases against drug sellers. It determines the scope of criminal liability under federal law.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON