Borden v. United States

Charles Borden Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The government sought an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), arguing that Borden's prior Tennessee conviction for reckless aggravated assault constituted a "violent felony." The Sixth Circuit agreed, applying ACCA's 15-year mandatory minimum. The Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision, holding that crimes requiring only a mens rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under ACCA's "use of physical force" clause because such offenses do not involve the "use" of force "against" another person as those terms are ordinarily understood.

The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that reckless offenses do not constitute violent felonies under ACCA's elements clause. Justice Kavanaugh authored the plurality opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Kavanaugh also wrote a separate concurrence. The decision vacated Borden's enhanced sentence.

Whether a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness qualifies as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause, which requires the "use of physical force against the person of another."

The ruling narrowed the scope of the Armed Career Criminal Act's mandatory minimum sentencing enhancement, affecting thousands of federal firearm possession cases. It clarified that reckless conduct, even if it results in physical injury, does not meet the "use of force" requirement. The decision highlighted ongoing judicial disagreements over statutory interpretation of ACCA and reinforced the importance of mens rea distinctions in federal sentencing law.