United States v. Reshat Shabani
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that government prosecutors need not prove evidence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy when prosecuting individuals under the drug conspiracy statute codified at 21 U.S.C. § 846.
513 U.S. 10 · No. 93-981 · 1994 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Nov 1, 1994 · argued Oct 3, 1994
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: conspiracy
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
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, Ninth 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.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994), was a court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified standards for conspiracy liability under a federal drug conspiracy statute. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that government prosecutors need not prove evidence of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy when prosecuting individuals under the drug conspiracy statute codified at 21 U.S.C. § 846. Justice O'Connor wrote that Congress intended to "adopt the common law definition" of conspiracy for section 846, which did not require an overt act as a precondition of liability. Justice O'Connor's opinion also compared the drug conspiracy statute to the general conspiracy statute, which requires that a conspirator commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, noting that "n light of this additional element in the general conspiracy statute, Congress' silence in § 846 speaks volumes."
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 1994 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined 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
- United StatesUnited States
- Respondent
- Reshat ShabaniPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
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
- 21 U.S.C. § 846
- 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.
- Nov 1, 1994DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed. United States won.
- Oct 3, 1994ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: reversed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Alaska 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
11 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: conspiracy, newest first.
- Calvin Smith, Petitioner v. United States568 U.S. 106Jan 9, 2013 · 568 U.S. 106Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- David Whitfield v. United States543 U.S. 209Jan 11, 2005 · 543 U.S. 209Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Tommy L. Rutledge v. United States517 U.S. 292Mar 27, 1996 · 517 U.S. 292Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Feola420 U.S. 671Mar 19, 1975 · 420 U.S. 671Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Anderson et al. v. United States417 U.S. 211Jun 3, 1974 · 417 U.S. 211Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Dege et Vir.364 U.S. 51Jun 27, 1960 · 364 U.S. 51Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Grunewald v. United States353 U.S. 391May 27, 1957 · 353 U.S. 391Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Lutwak et al. v. United States344 U.S. 604Feb 9, 1953 · 344 U.S. 604Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Sealfon v. United States332 U.S. 575Jan 5, 1948 · 332 U.S. 575Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Blumenthal v. United States332 U.S. 539Dec 22, 1947 · 332 U.S. 539Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Fiswick et al. v. United States329 U.S. 211Dec 9, 1946 · 329 U.S. 211Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous 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.