McNeill v. United States (10-5258)

argument 10-5258

McNeill v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 41 min 4 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 central legal issue in McNeil v. United States?

Unknown 0:03

We'll hear argument next this morning in case 105258, McNeil versus United States. Mr. Gordon? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. When this court construes a statute The words of the statute matter. The purpose of the statute matters and the results produced by that construction matter. When Congress defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act a serious drug offense as one for which a state penalty of ten years or more is prescribed by law. It meant for federal courts to look to the law presently in effect in that state. This is the most natural reading of the statute, and words matter. It is also consistent with ACA's purpose, which is to punish the federal firearms offense.

How does the Court interpret the statutory language of the Armed Career Criminal Act?

Unknown 0:59

And if we are going to punch the

Elena Kagan 1:02

President, I I have just one problem, which is Under your theory, I understand it. if a state increases a penalty. makes a what would have been a penalty for a misdemeanour now a felony. And that defendant is a career criminal. by your logic. Um so the person who thought that at the time they committed the crime they were committing a low-level crime is now a felon. Is that your theory of the case?

Unknown 1:31

If if a state were to increase a penalty, say from originally it was five years, increased it to ten years, the defendant was convicted at a time when it was five years, if The legislature increased the penalty, the defendant possessed a firearm, yes, he would be facing the

Elena Kagan 1:48

what logic do you think there is in that? Uh, why Congress would want to punish someone now for cri for a criminal activity that they thought was lesser and the state thought was lesser at an earlier time, less re reprehensible.

Unknown 2:06

Be because the purpose of the Armed Career Criminal Act is not to enhance a sentence because of the prior conviction, it is because the federal firearm offense at the time it was committed is more serious based on based on its repetitive nature, as this court has said. Um so therefore looking to when the defendant commits the offense, what his status is at that time under the law, we think makes sense, uh and is consonant with the purpose of of what ACA is trying to do. ACCA is not trying to punish um the state offense at the time. And of course the converse, Your Honor, um, is that uh Uh By by adopting the government's reading. Um is individuals who at a time committed a an offense when a state at that time viewed an offense as more serious but now has changed its view of the offense, does not view it as being as serious, that person also would receive a fifteen year mandatory minimum sentence.

Unknown 3:11

Mr Gordon, this state does regard it. It does prog pre prescribe the ten years for this div Dependent. because it's made it made the chains not retroactive. So a maximum of ten years Is prescribed for Mr. McNeil. and all others who committed the offence uh prior to the change in law. So it is it it is the curr state's current position that for this defendant the maximum is ten years. Yes, Justice Ginsburg, that's correct. Um where we fundamentally disagree with the government and with the Fourth Circuit is on the significance of retroactivity. Um we th the statute requires or the statute directs us to look at the penalty that is prescribed for the offense. The offense in its generic context. It it is not about

Unknown 4:06

what the circumstances of the defendant were that produced the particular conviction for him. Um no one who commits the trafficking offenses that uh Mr McNeil committed today is going to be facing a ten year sentence. It it is not going to happen to anyone who commits the offense from today forward. And we think that is where the statute directs us to look. What is the penalty for the generic offense?

Samuel A. Alito 4:33

Suppose uh w what would happen in this situation? A defendant is convicted under a state statute that says that anybody who sells between one ounce uh one ounce and five ounces of a particular controlled substance is guilty of a felony and is uh may be punished by imprisonment uh b for uh a certain amount of time. And then the state repeals that provision altogether, enacts a new provision.