Borden v. United States
Case Overview
The Supreme Court addressed whether reckless conduct (acting with conscious disregard of a substantial risk) can qualify as a 'use of physical force' under the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of 'violent felony,' which determines whether a defendant with prior convictions faces a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos
The Facts
James Borden was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon and faced the ACCA's 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. One of the government's three predicate violent felonies was his prior Tennessee reckless assault conviction, which required only that he recklessly - not intentionally - caused bodily injury to another person. The question was whether recklessly using force that causes injury counts as 'use of physical force against the person of another' under the ACCA's elements clause, given that reckless offenses do not require the defendant to intentionally apply force.
The Application
Although Voisine established that reckless conduct can constitute 'use of physical force' in the domestic violence context, the Court found that ACCA's statutory language, requiring an offense 'has as an element the use or physical force,' imposes a narrower, intent-based definition when applied to sentencing enhancements. The plurality and concurring justices agreed that 'use of physical force' in ACCA requires intentional application of force rather than mere reckless disregard of a substantial risk. Because Borden's Tennessee conviction required only reckless bodily injury without requiring intentional force, his prior assault could not qualify as a violent felony predicate, notwithstanding that the injury itself satisfied Johnson's definition of physical force.
The Conclusion
Decided June 10, 2021. The Court held 4-1-4 - in a fractured decision with no majority opinion - that reckless offenses do not satisfy the ACCA's elements clause definition of violent felony. Justice Thomas's plurality held that 'use of physical force' requires intentional application of force. Four other Justices reached the same result on different grounds. Borden's Tennessee reckless assault conviction could not serve as an ACCA predicate. The ruling exempted a category of reckless-harm offenses from ACCA's violent-felony definition.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support