Supreme Court· 2/26/2020

Shular v. United States

Citations

589 U.S. 154
140 S. Ct. 779
206 L. Ed. 2d 81

How courts have described this case

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

holding that ACCA’s “‘serious drug of- fense’ definition requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the federal statute”
holding that a state offense can qualify as a “serious drug offense” under ACCA even if it is broader than the conduct specified in ACCA’s text
holding that the rule of lenity applies only after the court has applied the traditional tools of statutory construction and is “left with an ambiguous statute” (quoting United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10, 17 (1994))
stating that rule of lenity applies “only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, we are left with an ambiguous statute” (internal quotation marks omitted)
noting that the label a state gives a crime is irrelevant because the elements are what matters
noting that under Section 893.13(1)(a), “‘knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element,’ but lack of such knowledge ‘is an affirmative defense’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ginsburg, Kavanaugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

109 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Shular v. United States

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.