Legal background

Enacted in 1984, the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides enhanced sentences for certain convicted felons who are later convicted of possession of a firearm. The Act imposes a mandatory fifteen-year prison sentence for those who, having been convicted of three or more violent felonies or serious drug offenses, are subsequently convicted of a possession of a firearm. The purpose of the Act is to target repeat offenders with a history of violent or drug-related crimes. Here, a "serious drug offense" is defined as a state-level crime involving a controlled substance punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least ten years. Furthermore, "controlled substance" is defined according to the five drug schedules of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

As defined by the CSA, Schedule I drugs are those drugs with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Drugs on Schedules II through V have established medical uses and diminishing potential for abuse. Every year, the Drug Enforcement Agency updates and republishes the drug schedules to ensure they remain up to date. The Supreme Court had previously held that if a substance is banned at only the state level, then any state crime arising from the possession of that drug cannot constitute an ACCA predicate.

Factual background in Brown v. United States

In 2016, Justin Rashaad Brown was arrested during a search relating to the buying and selling of controlled drugs. During the search, officers found drugs, money, and a revolver. Brown was later indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm. In the time between his arrest and sentencing, Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018. This act amended the CSA to remove hemp from the federal definition of marijuana. In 2019, Brown pleaded guilty to the firearm and drug charges arising from his 2016 arrest. He had previously been convicted five times of Pennsylvania drug laws, one relating to cocaine and four relating to marijuana. The District Court, finding that these five offenses constituted "serious drug offenses", sentenced him to concurrent fifteen year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Brown argued that his prior marijuana convictions could not serve as ACCA predicates because they criminalize hemp, while the CSA had since been amended to exclude hemp from the definition of marijuana. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed, holding that the law at the time of the offense should control, rather than the law at the time of sentencing.^[1]

Factual background in Jackson v. United States

Stemming from his actions in 2017, Eugene Jackson pleaded guilty in the Southern District of Florida to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. A pre-sentence report recommended that Jackson be sentenced under the ACCA, and thus be given the mandatory fifteen year minimum prison sentence. While Jackson conceded that he had two prior felony convictions that were ACCA predicates, he disputed that his 1998 and 2004 cocaine-related convictions could serve as ACCA predicates. These two convictions involved a cocaine derivative that, at the time, was prohibited by both Florida law and the CSA. In the time between Jackson's drug convictions and his firearm offense, the cocaine derivative was removed from the federal CSA schedules. Since the drug was not federally prohibited at the time of the firearm offense, Jackson argued that any conviction arising from possession of the drug should not count as an ACCA predicate. The District Court disagreed and imposed the mandatory fifteen-year sentence. Initially on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously reversed Jackson's sentence. Later, the Court vacated its own opinion and requested supplemental briefing. It went on to reverse its own opinion and uphold Jackson's sentence.^[2]