Interesting 6-3 split in ruling for feds in reach of ACCA covering state drug convictions

Regular readers know the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is a messy statute that has divided the Supreme Court for decades regarding how to categorize various prior convictions as possible triggers for ACCA’s 15-year mandatory minimums.  Another divided Supreme Court opinion was handed down in this arena today  in Brown v. US, No. 22–6389 (S. Ct. May 23, 2024) (available here). The opinion for the Court was authored by Justice Alito, and it starts this way:

These cases concern the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to state drug convictions that occurred before recent technical amendments to the federal drug schedules.  ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on defendants who are convicted for the illegal possession of a firearm and have a criminal history that is thought to demonstrate a propensity for violence.  These defendants are subject to ACCA’s enhanced penalty if, among other things, they have “three previous convictions” for “a serious drug offense.” 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1).  For a state crime to qualify as a “serious drug offense,” it must carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years’ imprisonment, and it must “involv[e] . . . a controlled substance . . . as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act” (CSA). §§924(e)(1), (2)(A)(ii). The CSA, in turn, includes five schedules of controlled substances and provides that these schedules must be updated each year by the Attorney General. 84 Stat. 1245, 1247, 21 U. S. C. §§811, 812.

The two cases now before us present the question whether a state crime constitutes a “serious drug offense” if it involved a drug that was on the federal schedules when the defendant possessed or trafficked in it but was later removed.  We hold that such an offense qualifies. 

Intriguingly, five other Justices joined Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court, but not the “usual suspects” when there are 6-3 divides on this Court. In this iteration, Justice Sotomayor joins the marjoirty in this ruling for the government, whereas Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan and Gorsuch joined (though the latter joined only as to Parts I, II, and III of the dissent). Here is how the dissent gets started:

The Court maintains that, “[s]tanding alone,” the text of 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) “does not definitively answer” the question presented in these cases. Ante, at 7. Instead, says the majority, we must look beyond the text to precedent, statutory context, and purpose — which apparently converge to persuade the majority that §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires sentencing courts to apply the drug schedules in effect at the time of a defendant’s prior state drug conviction when determining the applicability of the 15-year mandatory minimum in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). But the relevant text does definitively answer the question presented here. And it establishes that courts should apply the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense that triggers ACCA’s potential application. Nothing else — not precedent, context, or purpose — requires a different result. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

I am hopeful, but not especially optimistic, that a faculty meeting and other commitments will not prevent me from fiding time in short order to review these opinions closely.