Johnson v. United States (13-7120)

argument 13-7120

Johnson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 54 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal question about short‑barrel shotgun possession under the Armed Career Criminal Act?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next in case thirteen seventy one twenty, Samuel Johnson versus the United States. Ms. Menendez.

Ms. Menendez 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Mere possession of a short barrel shotgun is not a violent felony within the definition of the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause, because it is neither similar in degree of risk nor similar in kind to the enumerated offences set forth in the language that immediately precedes that clause.

Ms. Menendez 0:36

Qualitative and quantitative parameters to lower courts in examining whether a particular predicate offence counts as a violent felony. Just six years ago in Bigay, this court made clear that the enumerated offences must be similar or that I'm sorry, a question predicate offence must be similar in kind to one of the enumerated offences, as well as similar in degree of risk. And when that proper framework is applied to the question of mere possession of a short barrel shotgun, it satisfies neither test.

Unknown 1:09

Should court should the court take into account that in the sentencing guidelines a possession of a short barreled shotgun. is ranked under career is under c career advances.

Ms. Menendez 1:23

Your Honor, in guideline amendment six hundred seventy-four in two thousand four, which Your Honor asks about, the Sentencing Commission included mere possession of an unregistered short barrel shotgun or possession of a short barrel shotgun as a crime of violence. But it did not do so after an examination of the empirical data or an assessment of the pool of data that gives us great confidence in the Sentencing Commission's decisions. In marked contrast, Your Honor. In nineteen ninety one, when the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment four hundred three that concluded that being a felon in possession of a firearm should not count as a crime of violence under the guidelines, it reached that conclusion after an extensive examination of empirical data.

Ms. Menendez 2:05

The difference between the adoption of those two amendments highlights the reason that the Sentencing Commission's decision on this point does not deserve deference in this case. An additional consideration, Your Honor, is that in making that decision in 2004, the Sentencing Commission was not anticipating the guidance that this court provided in James, Begay, Chambers, and Sykes, and it doesn't engage in any of the proper analysis. So whether we look at it as the Sentencing Commission not serving their traditional role as fact finders and the keepers of empirical data, or whether we acknowledge the fact that it preceded very important guidance from this court. I don't think it controls this court's decision.

Elena Kagan 2:45

Is it your

Samuel A. Alito 2:46

position I I'm sorry. as a violent felony.

Ms. Menendez 2:55

Your Honor, I believe it would be possible for a very rare possession offence to qualify as a violent felony if the possession alone presents a serious potential risk of injury. Respectfully, I believe the flaw with the other side's position in this case is their entire analysis is based not on the risk inherent in the mere possession, but on the risk inherent in committing a further violent crime with that weapon. And so I believe that any mere possession of a firearm, including a short barrel firearm, is not going to satisfy the definition

Anthony M. Kennedy 3:26

But if I understand the government's argument, it's that there's a very strong correlation between possession in this case and use for criminal purposes of a kind that clearly would pose a r a a risk of uh of violent conduct and injury. So are you saying that we never can take that kind of correlation into account? That possession crimes just have to be treated in a box and we can't think about whether the possession of something increases the risk of use, which then will pose a serious risk of injury.

Ms. Menendez 3:59

Your Your Honor, my response is twofold. First, although the government has asserted that correlation, they have not substantiated it in any way. And there's no data before the court that supports the claim that merely possessing a short barrel shotgun is somehow connected with frequent or even regular use.