October Term 2020 · Docket 19-5410
Does the Armed Career Criminal Act cover reckless force?
The dispute centers on whether the statute includes crimes committed with reckless disregard for safety.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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 statute requires intentional force.
The government argued the statute covers reckless force.
Justices questioned the distinction between recklessness and intent.
Advocates cited prior Supreme Court decisions for support.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-26 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-32 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 52-28 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 52-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 18-54 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 18-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-18
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act. It asks if the law covers reckless acts. the side that brought the case argues the law requires intent. The government argues the law covers reckless conduct. The Court must define the term use of force.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 3, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 52-54
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to limit the statute to intentional acts.
The government wants the Court to include reckless acts in the statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the word use implies active, intentional employment of force.
The government argues prior precedent supports including reckless conduct in the definition.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
What the justices asked
Justice Alito asked if ordinary recklessness differs from depraved heart murder.
Justice Breyer asked how to define reckless disregard of substantial risk.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-26 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-32 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 52-28 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 52-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 18-54 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 18-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-18
Why it matters
The outcome defines which prior convictions trigger enhanced sentences. It clarifies the mental state required for violent felonies. It affects sentencing consistency across federal courts. It shapes the boundary between intentional and reckless criminal conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
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 11, lines 42-54 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 42-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 34-26 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 34-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 18-32 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 18-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 20-32 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 20-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 52-28 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 52-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 14-32 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 14-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 18-54 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 18-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 28-54 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 28-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 12-22 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 12-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 30-52 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 30-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 12-32 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 12-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 34-52 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 34-52
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 42-18 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 42-18
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 36, lines 42-28 — Transcript, file page 36, lines 42-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 24-28 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 24-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 52-54 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 52-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 40-50 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 40-50
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.