Barrett v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Barrett v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Barrett v. United States.
The Supreme Court addressed whether a single act violating both 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) can result in two convictions. The Court determined that Congress did not clearly authorize multiple convictions for such acts, thus reversing the Second Circuit\'s decision. The Court\'s analysis focused on statutory construction and the Blockburger presumption.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Barrett v. United States.
The Court held that Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both §§924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Barrett v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Double Jeopardy is relevant to Barrett v. United States
The case addresses whether a single act can result in multiple convictions under different statutory provisions, which relates to the prohibition on multiple punishments for the same offense.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The question presented is whether a single act that violates both provisions may yield two convictions—one under each provision—or only one.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Barrett v. United States
The Court engages in statutory interpretation to determine Congressional intent, which is a core aspect of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court resolves the question as a matter 'of statutory construction,' because 'whether punishments . . . are unconstitutionally multiple cannot be resolved without determining what punishments the Legislative Branch has authorized.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Barrett v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
Congress did not clearly authorize convictions under both §§924(c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for a single act that violates both provisions.
The Blockburger presumption can yield to a plainly expressed contrary intent.
The statute’s operation and structure provide no indication Congress expressed any will to overcome Blockburger.
