Mathis v. United States
| Mathis v. 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.[1][2]
Description
The conviction at issue was under Iowa's burglary law, which criminalized unlawful entry into "any building, structure, [or] land, water, or air vehicle." To the Court, the common understanding of "burglary" was unlawful entry into a "building or other structure."[1]