Lockhart v. United States
577 U.S. ____ (2016) (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the rule of the last antecedent, a limiting clause or phrase at the end of a list of terms should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately precedes, unless the statutory context and structure indicate a contrary meaning.
Facts:
- In April 2000, Avondale Lockhart was convicted under New York state law for sexual abuse in the first degree.
- The victim of Lockhart's 2000 sexual abuse conviction was his 53-year-old girlfriend, an adult.
- Eleven years later, Lockhart engaged in conduct that led to a federal indictment for attempting to receive and possessing child pornography.
Procedural Posture:
- Avondale Lockhart was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for child pornography offenses and pleaded guilty to one count of possession.
- At sentencing, the District Court applied the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), finding that Lockhart's prior state conviction for sexual abuse of an adult qualified as a predicate offense.
- Lockhart (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing the enhancement was improper because his prior conviction involved an adult, not a minor or ward.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's sentence, holding that the phrase 'involving a minor or ward' modified only the last offense in the list.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the phrase 'involving a minor or ward' in the sentencing enhancement provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) modify all three preceding predicate offenses ('aggravated sexual abuse,' 'sexual abuse,' and 'abusive sexual conduct'), or only the last antecedent, 'abusive sexual conduct'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sotomayor
No, the phrase 'involving a minor or ward' modifies only the last antecedent, 'abusive sexual conduct.' The Court's holding is based on the rule of the last antecedent, a grammatical canon of statutory interpretation providing that a limiting phrase ordinarily modifies only the term it immediately follows. This interpretation is supported by the statute's context and structure; specifically, the list of state predicates mirrors the structure of federal sexual abuse offenses in Chapter 109A of the Federal Criminal Code, where 'aggravated sexual abuse' and 'sexual abuse' are defined as offenses that can involve adult victims. Applying the modifier to all three terms would also create redundancy, violating the canon against superfluity. The Court found the legislative history unpersuasive and concluded the statute was not sufficiently ambiguous to trigger the rule of lenity.
Dissenting - Justice Kagan
Yes, the phrase 'involving a minor or ward' should be read to modify all three preceding offenses. This case is better governed by the 'series-qualifier' principle, which reflects ordinary language use where a modifier at the end of an integrated list applies to all items in the series. Legislative history, including a Senate Report describing the enhancement as applying to 'any State child abuse law' and a Department of Justice letter referring to 'child molestation,' strongly indicates Congress intended for all predicate offenses to involve minors. The majority's reliance on Chapter 109A as a 'template' is flawed because the state predicate list is structurally different, and the statute contains numerous other disparities between federal and state predicates. At a minimum, any ambiguity should be resolved in the defendant's favor under the rule of lenity.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the 'rule of the last antecedent' as a primary tool of statutory interpretation, privileging grammatical structure and intra-statutory context over legislative history and arguments from 'ordinary language.' By narrowing the application of the 'involving a minor or ward' qualifier, the Court broadens the scope of state predicate offenses that can trigger a severe mandatory minimum sentence in federal child pornography cases. The ruling creates a notable disparity, allowing prior state convictions for sexual abuse of adults to serve as sentence enhancers, which will likely result in significantly longer sentences for defendants with such prior convictions.
Unlock the full brief for Lockhart v. United States