The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

The Occassionally Armed Career Guide to the Supreme Court

·51 min·5 clips

Brett asks if the Joker and Mr. Freeze would reconsider crimes to avoid triggering the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The episode opens with hosts Brett and Nazim sharing humorous personal updates, including a story about their podcast's 'fart law' episode appearing in search results and discussions about the return of CM Punk to wrestling and the merits of The Matrix sequels. They transition to the main topic: the Supreme Court case Wooden v. United States, the first oral argument of the term. The case involves the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a federal statute that imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on felons in possession of a firearm if they have three prior convictions for violent felonies committed on 'occasions different from one another.' The hosts explain that Wooden pleaded guilty to ten counts of burglary in 1997 for stealing from ten different storage units in one mini-storage facility, serving an eight-year sentence. The current dispute is whether those ten burglaries constitute one 'occasion' or ten separate occasions under the ACCA. Brett and Nazim explore the legal concept of due process, with Nazim arguing that the idea citizens can read and understand all laws is 'utter bullshit.' They discuss the purpose of habitual offender statutes like the ACCA, debating whether they target individuals who cannot be rehabilitated. The hosts reference previous ACCA cases, including Johnson v. United States, which found the term 'violent felony' unconstitutionally vague, and United States v. Stitt and Stokeling v. United States, which dealt with whether specific crimes like burglary of a mobile home qualify as violent felonies. Throughout, they use hypotheticals, such as whether Gotham City villains would consider the ACCA when planning crimes, to question the practical impact of such laws. The conversation also touches on the Supreme Court's tendency to rule narrowly, as seen in Masterpiece Cakeshop. Brett and Nazim analyze the oral arguments in Wooden, noting Justice Gorsuch's tough questioning of the government attorney. They conclude by predicting Wooden will likely win the case due to the government's 'unreasonable interpretation' of the statute. The episode ends with podcast logistics and a humorous warning to 'space out your crimes.'

As heard by us

A narrow look at ACCA, where prosecutors and defenders fight over how much the Court will leave standing.

The episode presents the Armed Career Criminal Act as a contest over who gets to define its reach: prosecutors want room to trigger it, while the Defense Association pushes for clearer rules.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want ACCA explained without courtroom fog, grandstanding, or fake certainty.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court