Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Bass

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseFederal Criminal LawStatutory Interpretationcriminal statute ambiguitylenityclear statementfederalism

Facts

Respondent had previously been convicted of a felony in New York State. The evidence showed that on separate occasions he possessed a pistol and then a shotgun. The indictment did not allege, and the prosecution did not attempt to prove, that either firearm was possessed in commerce or affecting commerce. The Government prosecuted on the theory that § 1202(a)(1) prohibited all firearm possession and receipt by convicted felons without requiring proof of an interstate commerce connection in the individual case.

Issue

Whether, in 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1), the phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" modifies only "transports" or also modifies "receives" and "possesses," thereby requiring the Government to prove an interstate commerce nexus for a felon's possession conviction.

Rule

When a criminal statute is ambiguous, courts must resolve the ambiguity in favor of lenity and should not adopt a broader reading absent a clear statement from Congress, especially where the broader interpretation would significantly alter the federal-state balance in criminal law. Under § 1202(a), the phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" is part of all three offenses—receiving, possessing, and transporting a firearm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Darius Cole, previously convicted of a felony in Ohio, kept a revolver in his apartment in Cleveland. Federal prosecutors charge him under a statute making it a crime for a felon who "receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce" any firearm, but they offer no evidence that the revolver was moving interstate, was on an interstate facility, or that Darius's possession affected commerce.

What is the strongest argument for Darius under the majority's interpretation of the statute?

Explanation. The majority held the statute is ambiguous and adopted the narrower reading: "in commerce or affecting commerce" applies to receiving, possessing, and transporting. Thus, for a possession prosecution, the government must prove a commerce nexus in the individual case. Mere proof of felony status plus possession is insufficient.