Defining “Violent Felony” Under the Armed Career Criminal Act: Resolving Disparity After the Circuit Splits 

Authored by: Nadia M. McDonald

Abstract

The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was enacted to deter recidivist offenders and protect public safety by imposing enhanced penalties on individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Yet, more than four decades after its passage, the statute continues to generate significant litigation due to persistent ambiguity in its key provisions. Central to this uncertainty is the definition of a “violent felony,” which has produced inconsistent judicial interpretations and created circuit splits.

This article examines the most critical areas of disagreement under the ACCA, including the required mens rea for “use of physical force” and the scope of “burglary” under the enumerated offenses clause, as well as the implications of the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the residual clause in Johnson v. United States.

It further explores the categorical approach employed by courts to compare state offenses to generic offenses, highlighting how this methodology contributes to disparate sentencing outcomes. Beyond that, the article assesses the broader consequences of these interpretive divides, including unequal sentencing, heightened litigation burdens, and public safety concerns. It concludes by arguing that only congressional clarification of the statute’s definitions can resolve these ongoing issues, ensure uniform application, and restore the ACCA’s intended deterrent effect.