Docket 24-5774
Barrett v. United States
DecidedJan 14, 2026
Unanimous (5 joining majority in full, all 5 concurring in judgment; Gorsuch concurring in part)decision
Source: CourtListener.
Court rules defendant can't be convicted twice under two overlapping gun-death statutes for one act
Impact4/10
What it does
The ruling holds that a person who commits one act that violates both §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) may be convicted under only one of those provisions, not both. It reverses the part of the Second Circuit's decision that allowed two separate convictions and sentences for the same underlying act, and sends the case back for further proceedings.
Who benefits
Criminal defendants charged under both §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) for a single act that caused a death during a gun crime, who will now face only one conviction and sentence instead of two stacked ones.
Who is affected
Federal prosecutors, who must now choose between charging under §924(c)(1)(A)(i) (which carries a mandatory minimum sentence) or §924(j) (which allows for higher maximum sentences including the death penalty) rather than stacking both for the same act.
Practical impact
Federal prosecutors handling cases where a firearm death occurs during a violent or drug trafficking crime must choose to charge either under §924(c)(1)(A)(i) or §924(j), not both, for the same act. This eliminates a source of stacked sentences for defendants in these circumstances and resolves a split among federal appeals courts on the issue, providing uniform treatment nationwide.
Majority reasoning
The majority applied the Blockburger test, which asks whether each of two statutory provisions requires proof of a fact the other does not; here everyone agreed §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) define the same offense because one is a lesser-included version of the other. Under the resulting presumption, courts assume Congress does not intend to allow two convictions for the same offense unless it clearly said otherwise. The Court found no such clear statement: Congress used explicit "in addition to" language elsewhere in §924(c) to authorize stacked convictions, but included no similar language linking subsection (c)(1) and subsection (j). The consecutive-sentence mandate in the statute only tells courts how to arrange sentences once multiple convictions are already permitted—it doesn't answer whether multiple convictions are permitted in the first place. The Court also found the statute's structure, its independent penalty scheme in subsection (j), and the legislative history all pointed toward subsection (j) being an alternative penalty option for the same offense, not an additional layer of punishment.
Constitutional question
Did Congress authorize both a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) (using a firearm during a violent or drug crime) and a conviction under §924(j) (causing death during that same crime) for a single act, or can only one conviction stand?