Borden v. United States

Summary

The Supreme Court held that a criminal offense requiring only a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a 'violent felony' under ACCA's elements clause, reversing the enhancement of Charles Borden's felon-in-possession sentence that rested in part on a 2007 Tennessee reckless aggravated assault conviction. Justice Kagan's opinion reasoned that the phrase 'against the person of another,' modifying the volitional 'use of physical force,' demands that force be directed at or targeted at another individual, which reckless conduct is not; Leocal, the ordinary meaning of 'violent felony,' and ACCA's purpose of targeting armed career criminals confirmed that reading, and Voisine was distinguished because its definition lacked the 'against' phrase and serves a different purpose. The Court reversed and remanded. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment on the narrower ground that 'use of physical force' itself excludes reckless conduct, while reluctantly accepting Johnson; Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts, C.J., and Alito and Barrett, JJ., dissented, arguing that 'against the person of another' is a longstanding term of art indifferent to mens rea and that Voisine compels coverage of reckless offenses.