Delaine v. United States
Brief Details
- Case No.: 26-231
- Brief Filed: September 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction: United States Supreme Court
Key Topics in the Brief
Briefs
Prior Decision
Decision below United States v. Delaine, 171 F.4th 880 (6th Cir. 2026)
Argument(s)
Petitioner question presented asks whether an offense that requires an intentional act, but no mens rea as to the resulting physical pain or injury, qualifies as a “violent felony” under ACCA’s elements clause. The Sixth Circuit held that no mens rea need attach to the resulting harm, while the Ninth and Tenth Circuits hold that it must. NACDL’s amicus brief offers a complementary analysis focused on the mature and consequential nature of that conflict and the culpability principle underlying the elements clause. First, NACDL contends that the circuits disagree not only on whether mens rea need attach to the resulting harm, but also on what Borden actually held. The result is an unworkable landscape in which the same prior conviction can trigger ACCA’s fifteen-year mandatory minimum in one circuit but not another.
Second, NACDL argues that the Sixth Circuit’s rule confuses the character of the force with the fortuity of the injury. Florida felony battery illustrates the problem: it criminalizes the same intentional touching that Johnson I held insufficient to constitute violent force, but adds a requirement that the touching cause great bodily harm without requiring a mens rea as to that harm. Under the Sixth Circuit’s approach, the unintended injury transforms the same minimally culpable touch into violent force. But the severity of an injury does not change the character of the underlying force or supply the culpability required by the elements clause. Finally, NACDL explains that the Sixth Circuit’s rule cannot be reconciled with the broader culpability principle American criminal law applies to enhanced punishment. Here, the Sixth Circuit's approach treats the fact that triggers the ACCA enhancement—the resulting injury—as a strict-liability fact that would impose dramatically greater punishment based on the fortuity of harm rather than the defendant’s culpability. The brief therefore urges the Court to grant certiorari and resolve an issue Borden left open that has only become more consequential as subsequent decisions, including Delligatti, have further developed the Court’s elements-clause jurisprudence without resolving the mens rea question presented here.
Author(s)
Adeel M. Bashir (Counsel of Record), 11th Circuit Vice-Chair, NACDL Amicus Committee, Tampa, FL Jeffrey T. Green, Co-Chair, NACDL Amicus Committee, Washington, DC
