McLaughlin v. United States
The Court unanimously held that an unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of federal bank robbery laws.
476 U.S. 16 · No. 85-5189 · 1985 term · Burger Court
Decided Apr 29, 1986 · argued Mar 31, 1986
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: bank robbery
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. McLaughlin lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
McLaughlin was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that an unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of federal bank robbery laws. Justice John Paul Stevens' brief four-paragraph opinion in McLaughlin has been described by some analysts as "the shortest opinion by the Court in decades."
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.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1985 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
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.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- McLaughlinPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Lower courts appeared to disagree
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.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 18 U.S.C. § 2113
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- 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.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 29, 1986DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. McLaughlin lost.
- Mar 31, 1986ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Lower courts appeared to disagree.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Maryland 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.
Other decisions on the same issue
8 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: bank robbery, newest first.
- Whitfield v. United States574 U.S. 265Jan 13, 2015 · 574 U.S. 265Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Marvin Peugh, Petitioner v. United States569 U.S. 530Jun 10, 2013 · 569 U.S. 530Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Edmund Boyle v. United States556 U.S. 938Jun 8, 2009 · 556 U.S. 938Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Floyd J. Carter v. United States530 U.S. 255Jun 12, 2000 · 530 U.S. 255Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Simpson v. United States435 U.S. 6Feb 28, 1978 · 435 U.S. 6Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- United States v. Gaddis et al.424 U.S. 544Mar 3, 1976 · 424 U.S. 544Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- Heflin v. United States358 U.S. 415Feb 24, 1959 · 358 U.S. 415Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Prince v. United States352 U.S. 322Feb 25, 1957 · 352 U.S. 322Criminal procedure7–18–1 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.
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.