United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCriminal LawStatutory InterpretationCommerce ClauseFederalism18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)firearmsfelon possession

Facts

Respondent had previously been convicted of a felony in New York State. The evidence showed that he possessed a pistol on one occasion and a shotgun on another. The indictment did not allege, and the Government did not attempt to prove, that either firearm was possessed in commerce or affecting commerce. The Government prosecuted on the theory that the statute banned all firearm possession and receipt by convicted felons without requiring proof of an interstate commerce connection in the individual case.

Issue

Whether, under 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 or receipt of a firearm.

Rule

When a criminal statute is ambiguous as to the conduct it reaches, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of lenity. Also, absent a clear statement from Congress, courts will not interpret a federal criminal statute to significantly alter the traditional federal-state balance by sweeping traditionally local criminal conduct into federal jurisdiction. Under § 1202(a), the phrase "in commerce or affecting commerce" applies to receives, possesses, and transports.

🔒

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.

In Phoenix, a federal prosecutor charges Nolan Pierce, a convicted felon, under a federal statute making it unlawful for such a person to "receives, possesses, or transports in commerce or affecting commerce any explosive device." The indictment alleges only that Nolan kept homemade blasting caps in his garage; it does not allege any connection to commerce.

If the statute is textually ambiguous about whether "in commerce or affecting commerce" modifies only "transports" or also "receives" and "possesses," which is the strongest argument for dismissing the possession count?

Explanation. The majority held that where a criminal statute is ambiguous about the conduct it reaches, courts apply lenity and adopt the narrower reading. It also refused to read the statute broadly where doing so would significantly intrude into an area traditionally policed by the states absent a clear statement from Congress. So if the commerce phrase is ambiguous, it should be read to modify possession, making commerce nexus an element.