InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

United States v. Batchelder

The Court held that, where two statutes criminalize the same act and those statutes have different maximum penalties, the maximum penalty of the statute the prosecutor chose to charge under applies.

442 U.S. 114 · No. 78-776 · 1978 term · Burger Court

Decided Jun 4, 1979 · argued Apr 18, 1979

Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: firearms

Majority opinion: Thurgood Marshall

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed. United States won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, and its own ruling ends the case.

United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, where two statutes criminalize the same act and those statutes have different maximum penalties, the maximum penalty of the statute the prosecutor chose to charge under applies. The decision whether and how to charge is still subject to constitutional constraints. For example, prosecution decisions cannot be a violation of equal protection.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1978 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianMarshallBrennanStevensWhiteBlackmunStewartPowellBurgerRehnquist

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
United StatesUnited States
Respondent
BatchelderPerson convicted of crime
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets, National Firearms, Organized Crime Control, Comprehensive Crime Control, or Gun Control Acts
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 4, 1979DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed. United States won.
  2. Apr 18, 1979ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit: unusual disposition, with a dissent.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Illinois Southern U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

30 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: firearms, newest first.

  1. United States v. Hemani146 S. Ct. 1677Jun 18, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1677Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  2. Bondi v. Vanderstok145 S. Ct. 857Mar 26, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 857Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  3. Delligatti v. United States145 S. Ct. 797Mar 21, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 797Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  4. Garland v. Cargill602 U.S. 406Jun 14, 2024 · 602 U.S. 406Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  5. Borden v. United States141 S. Ct. 1817Jun 10, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1817Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  6. Rehaif v. United States139 S. Ct. 2191Jun 21, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2191Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  7. United States v. Stitt139 S. Ct. 399Dec 10, 2018 · 139 S. Ct. 399Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  8. Voisine v. United States579 U.S. 686Jun 27, 2016 · 579 U.S. 686Criminal procedure6–27–2 band

  9. Mathis v. United States579 U.S. 500Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 500Criminal procedure5–36–3 band

  10. Henderson v. United States575 U.S. 622May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 622Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  11. United States v. Martin O'Brien and Arthur Burgess560 U.S. 218May 24, 2010 · 560 U.S. 218Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  12. United States v. Randy Edward Hayes555 U.S. 415Feb 24, 2009 · 555 U.S. 415Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  13. United States v. Ahmed Ressam553 U.S. 272May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 272Criminal procedure8–18–1 band

  14. Gary Sherwood Small v. United States544 U.S. 385Apr 26, 2005 · 544 U.S. 385Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
  15. Jaime Castillo, et al., v. United States530 U.S. 120Jun 5, 2000 · 530 U.S. 120Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  16. Gerald R. Caron v. United States524 U.S. 308Jun 22, 1998 · 524 U.S. 308Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  17. Sillasse Bryan v. United States524 U.S. 184Jun 15, 1998 · 524 U.S. 184Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  18. Frank J. Muscarello v. United States524 U.S. 125Jun 8, 1998 · 524 U.S. 125Criminal procedure5–45–4 band

  19. Roland J. Bailey v. United States516 U.S. 137Dec 6, 1995 · 516 U.S. 137Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band

  20. Harold E. Staples, III v. United States511 U.S. 600May 23, 1994 · 511 U.S. 600Criminal procedure7–27–2 band

  21. Lenard Ray Beecham v. United States511 U.S. 368May 16, 1994 · 511 U.S. 368Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
  22. John Angus Smith v. United States508 U.S. 223May 24, 1993 · 508 U.S. 223Criminal procedure6–36–3 band

  23. Ball v. United States470 U.S. 856Mar 26, 1985 · 470 U.S. 856Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
  24. Dickerson, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. New Banner Institute, Inc.460 U.S. 103Feb 23, 1983 · 460 U.S. 103Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
  25. Busic v. United States446 U.S. 398May 19, 1980 · 446 U.S. 398Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  26. Lewis v. United States445 U.S. 55Feb 27, 1980 · 445 U.S. 55Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
  27. Scarborough v. United States431 U.S. 563Jun 6, 1977 · 431 U.S. 563Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
  28. Barrett v. United States423 U.S. 212Jan 13, 1976 · 423 U.S. 212Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
  29. Huddleston v. United States415 U.S. 814Mar 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 814Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
  30. United States v. Bass404 U.S. 336Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 336Criminal procedure5–27–2 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.