Caulfield v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because Johnson’s rule “prohibits] ‘a certain category of pun ishment for a class of defendants because of their status’ ... [t]here is no escaping the logical conclusion that the [Supreme] Court itself has made Johnson categorically’ retroactive to cases on collateral review”
• when the Supreme Court announces a new substantive rule, it logically follows that the Supreme Court has made the rule retroactive
• “Johnson rests on the notice requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and thus the new rule that it announces is one of constitutional law.”
• “Johnson announces a new rule: It explicitly overrules the line of Supreme Court decisions that began with Begay, and it broke new ground by invalidating a provision of the ACCA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).