Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Reinaldo SANTOS v. UNITED STATES, 2019 — 139 S. Ct. 1714 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Reinaldo SANTOS v. UNITED STATES
139 S. Ct. 1714·Supreme Court of the United States·2019
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Reinaldo SANTOS
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 18-7096
Supreme Court of the United States.
Decided May 20, 2019
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States filed on March 21, 2019.
[MAJORITY — Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissenting.]
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, dissenting.
The Court grants, vacates, and remands in this case, apparently because it harbors doubt that petitioner's 1987 conviction under Florida law for battery on a law enforcement officer qualifies as a "violent felony" as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act's elements clause, which covers a felony offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another." 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). I share no such doubt: As the case comes to us, it is undisputed that petitioner was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer after he " 'struck [an] officer in the face using a closed fist.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. A-1, p. 11. See Fla. Stat. § 784.03(1)(a) (2018) (a person commits battery when he "[a]ctually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other," among other things). Because the record makes "perfectly clear" that petitioner "was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer by striking, which involves the use of physical force against the person of another," App. to Pet. for Cert. A-1, at 11, I would count the conviction as a "violent felony" under the elements clause and would therefore deny the petition. Mathis v. United States , 579 U. S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 2267, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016) (ALITO, J., dissenting).