| Litigants: | Descamps v. United States |
| Arguedate: | January 7 |
| Argueyear: | 2013 |
| Decidedate: | June 20 |
| Decideyear: | 2013 |
| Fullname: | Matthew Robert Descamps, Petitioner v. United States Attorney- Dan B. Johnson, Spokane, Washington. |
| Usvol: | 570 |
| Uspage: | 254 |
| Parallelcitations: | 133 S. Ct. 2276; 186 L. Ed. 2d 438; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4698, 81 U.S.L.W. 4490 |
| Docket: | 11-9540 |
| Opinionannouncement: | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9540_8m58.pdf |
| Holding: | Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, judges may not look at facts associated with a crime (the "modified categorical approach") when criminal statutes contain a single, indivisible set of elements |
| Majority: | Kagan |
| Joinmajority: | Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence: | Kennedy |
| Concurrence2: | Thomas (in judgment) |
| Dissent: | Alito |
| Lawsapplied: | Armed Career Criminal Act |
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified standards for evaluating potential prior offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).[1] In an 8–1 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court held that judges may only look at the statutory elements of a crime, rather than the facts associated with that particular crime, "when the crime of which the defendant was convicted has a single, indivisible set of elements."[2] In his review of the case for SCOTUSblog, Daniel Richman opined that following the Court's decision, "[w]hether or not a prior conviction is going to 'count' will have to be determined as mechanically as possible."[3]