Case Citator › Jones v. United States

Jones v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
526 U.S. 227
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
162 of 166
Citing cases (total)
2,180
Treatment dates
2003–2015
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Jones v. United States is limited: 162 of the 166 flagged citations have been read, the text of the other 4 could not be retrieved, and the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below. The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits held Jones unavailable retroactively on collateral review, and the Seventh Circuit declined to read its jury-trial rationale as excluding constitutionally reliable nonjury juvenile adjudications from the prior-conviction exception.
More on how this was screened

The other readable opinions applied Jones's statutory-elements and constitutional-avoidance framework, rejected applications outside its own stated scope, reported its effect on older lower-court precedent, or identified Apprendi v. New Jersey as the decision that converted Jones's constitutional concern into a firm rule. The four unread citing opinions, listed below, leave the review incomplete, so no good-law finding can be made.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

2,180 later cases cite Jones v. United States; 166 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 162 of them have been read, and the text of 4 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Jones v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Fourth Circuit held that Jones's new constitutional rule does not apply retroactively on collateral review.

    Lyons v. Lee · Fourth Circuit · filed

    The district court recognized that we have held that Apprendi and Jones state a new rule of constitutional law that cannot be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Seventh Circuit declined to read Jones's jury-trial rationale as barring an ACCA enhancement based on a constitutionally reliable nonjury juvenile adjudication.

    Welch v. United States · Seventh Circuit · filed

    We do not believe Apprendi or Jones signals the Supreme Court’s distrust of the factual integrity of juvenile adjudications that conform to the constitutional requirements for such proceedings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh Circuit held that Jones does not apply retroactively on collateral review.

    Richard Vieux v. Warden, USA · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    Because the Apprendi rule does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review, neither does Jones, a decision applying that rule.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jones v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace