Frank J. Muscarello v. United States
The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one's person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle.
524 U.S. 125 · No. 96-1654 · 1997 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 8, 1998 · argued Mar 23, 1998
Criminal procedure · Statutory construction of criminal laws: firearms
Majority opinion: Stephen Breyer
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Frank J. Muscarello lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Frank J. Muscarello 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.
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case focusing on legislative interpretation of a firearms chapter of the federal criminal code. The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one's person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle. The Court held that the statute should be construed broadly and that a firearm discovered in a vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, would constitute as “carrying” under the statute.
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 1997 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Stephen BreyerWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Ruth GinsburgWrote a dissent
David SouterJoined a dissent
William RehnquistJoined a dissent
Antonin ScaliaJoined a dissent
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
- Frank J. MuscarelloPerson accused, indicted, or suspected of crime
- Respondent
- United StatesUnited States
- 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.
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. § 924
- 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.
- Jun 8, 1998DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Frank J. Muscarello lost.
- Mar 23, 1998ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Louisiana Eastern 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
30 other argued cases since 1946 on statutory construction of criminal laws: firearms, newest first.
- United States v. Hemani146 S. Ct. 1677Jun 18, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 1677Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Bondi v. Vanderstok145 S. Ct. 857Mar 26, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 857Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Delligatti v. United States145 S. Ct. 797Mar 21, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 797Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Garland v. Cargill602 U.S. 406Jun 14, 2024 · 602 U.S. 406Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Borden v. United States141 S. Ct. 1817Jun 10, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1817Criminal procedure5–45–4 band
- Rehaif v. United States139 S. Ct. 2191Jun 21, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2191Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Stitt139 S. Ct. 399Dec 10, 2018 · 139 S. Ct. 399Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Voisine v. United States579 U.S. 686Jun 27, 2016 · 579 U.S. 686Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Mathis v. United States579 U.S. 500Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 500Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Henderson v. United States575 U.S. 622May 18, 2015 · 575 U.S. 622Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Martin O'Brien and Arthur Burgess560 U.S. 218May 24, 2010 · 560 U.S. 218Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Randy Edward Hayes555 U.S. 415Feb 24, 2009 · 555 U.S. 415Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- United States v. Ahmed Ressam553 U.S. 272May 19, 2008 · 553 U.S. 272Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- Gary Sherwood Small v. United States544 U.S. 385Apr 26, 2005 · 544 U.S. 385Criminal procedure5–36–3 band
- Jaime Castillo, et al., v. United States530 U.S. 120Jun 5, 2000 · 530 U.S. 120Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Gerald R. Caron v. United States524 U.S. 308Jun 22, 1998 · 524 U.S. 308Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Sillasse Bryan v. United States524 U.S. 184Jun 15, 1998 · 524 U.S. 184Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Roland J. Bailey v. United States516 U.S. 137Dec 6, 1995 · 516 U.S. 137Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Harold E. Staples, III v. United States511 U.S. 600May 23, 1994 · 511 U.S. 600Criminal procedure7–27–2 band
- Lenard Ray Beecham v. United States511 U.S. 368May 16, 1994 · 511 U.S. 368Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- John Angus Smith v. United States508 U.S. 223May 24, 1993 · 508 U.S. 223Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Ball v. United States470 U.S. 856Mar 26, 1985 · 470 U.S. 856Criminal procedure8–0Unanimous band
- 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
- Busic v. United States446 U.S. 398May 19, 1980 · 446 U.S. 398Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- Lewis v. United States445 U.S. 55Feb 27, 1980 · 445 U.S. 55Criminal procedure6–36–3 band
- United States v. Batchelder442 U.S. 114Jun 4, 1979 · 442 U.S. 114Criminal procedure9–0Unanimous band
- Scarborough v. United States431 U.S. 563Jun 6, 1977 · 431 U.S. 563Criminal procedure7–18–1 band
- Barrett v. United States423 U.S. 212Jan 13, 1976 · 423 U.S. 212Criminal procedure6–27–2 band
- Huddleston v. United States415 U.S. 814Mar 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 814Criminal procedure8–18–1 band
- 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.
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.