| Mathis v. United States | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided June 23, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Mathis v. United States |
| Docket no. | 15-6092 |
| Citations | 579 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| If a state law defines a crime more broadly than the common understanding of that crime, a conviction under that state law cannot be used as a sentencing enhancement under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kagan, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Armed Career Criminal Act | |
Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a state law defines a crime more broadly than the common understanding of that crime, a conviction under that state law cannot be used as a sentencing enhancement under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.
Description
The conviction at issue was under Iowa's burglary law, which criminalized unlawful entry into "any building, structure, land, water, or air vehicle." To the Court, the common understanding of "burglary" was unlawful entry into a "building or other structure."
References
- ^ Mathis v. United States, No. 15-6092, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
- "Opinion analysis: Victory for the "categorical approach" in immigration and federal criminal sentencing – but for how long?". SCOTUSblog. 2016-06-24. Retrieved 2024-10-27.
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |