October Term 2023 · Docket 23-370

Can judges decide if prior crimes count as separate offenses?

the sides that brought the case argue judges must only verify prior convictions. The government argues judges must decide if those crimes were separate.

Official caption
Erlinger v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Jeffrey Fisher argued that precedent dictates the outcome here.

    He stated that judges may only find what crime a defendant committed.

    He emphasized that judges cannot find anything more than the elements.

    The government advocate argued that the statute requires a recidivism determination. He claimed this legislative choice is consistent with the Constitution. He noted that judges must find the separateness of prior offenses.

    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

This case tests the scope of judicial power under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The dispute centers on whether judges can make factual findings about the nature of prior crimes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 27, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to limit judges to verifying prior convictions.

The government wants the Court to allow judges to decide if prior crimes were separate.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue precedent limits judges to finding only the elements of prior convictions.

The government argues the statute requires judges to make recidivism determinations.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kavanaugh asked if historical practice supports a constitutional requirement.

Justice Alito asked if the Court should hint at a specific standard.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between judicial and jury roles in sentencing. It determines how courts handle prior criminal records. The outcome shapes the balance of power in criminal trials.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON