Supreme Court's Contradicting Its Own Rulings, Justices Say

Justices of the US Supreme Court pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022.

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Elena Kagan joined liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissenting in a case involving drug and firearm convictions filed Thursday, arguing that the court is contradicting its own rulings in the majority opinion.

Brown v. United States centers around the question of whether a state drug conviction qualifies as a "serious drug offense," under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), if the drug involved was listed as a controlled substance under federal law when the crime occurred but the drug was later removed from the list.

The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone who has been convicted for the illegal possession of a firearm and has a criminal history that exhibits a tendency for violence, which includes three previous convictions for a serious drug offense.

The Supreme Court upheld lower-court decisions on Thursday, arguing that a state drug conviction is a qualification for the ACCA's mandatory minimum sentence if the drug was listed as a controlled substance under federal law at the time of the defendant's conviction of the drug crime, even if the drug was later removed from the list.

A 2011 Supreme Court ruling in McNeill v. United States was used to support the majority opinion, which was delivered by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett—all of whom are conservative-leaning—joined Alito in the opinion, as did liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

"As we explained in McNeill, ACCA requires sentencing courts to examine the law as it was when the defendant violated it, even if that law is subsequently amended," the majority opinion read.

However, the dissenting opinion, filed by Jackson, argued that "McNeill asked what state crime the defendant committed, while today's cases ask how ACCA assesses that conviction," adding that "the majority's opinion not only misconstrues McNeill, it also flatly contradicts other precedents from this Court outlining how to determine whether a prior state conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate."

"As the majority only scantly mentions, to determine whether a state crime is a 'serious drug offense,' courts are not supposed to rely on the actual or alleged facts related to the prior state drug crime. Rather, they ask 'if the State's definition of the drug in question 'matche[s]' the definition under federal law,'" the dissenting opinion read, citing Shular v. United States, a 2020 ruling from the court.

Gorsuch joined Parts I, II and III of Jackson's dissenting opinion but not Part IV. The quotes above from the dissenting opinion are from Part III.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court via email for comment.

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial