Case Citator › Johnson v. United States

Johnson 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
559 U.S. 133
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
133 of 133
Citing cases (total)
1,745
Treatment dates
2014
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. Limited: all 133 flagged citations have been read, with the one confirmed treatment listed below. United States v. Castleman declined to extend Johnson's ACCA definition of physical force to the misdemeanor-domestic-violence statute.
More on how this was screened

The remaining opinions applied Johnson, discussed the different 2015 Johnson residual-clause decision, or used nearby treatment language about other authorities.

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.

1,745 later cases cite Johnson v. United States; 133 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. 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 Johnson 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 Court declined to extend Johnson's ACCA definition of “physical force” to misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, for which common-law offensive touching is sufficient.

    United States v. Castleman · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Johnson specifically reserved the question whether our definition of “physical force” would extend to 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9). 559 U. S., at 143–144. And these reasons for declining to extend Johnson’s definition to §922(g)(9) serve equally to rebut the “presumption of consistent usage” on which JUSTICE SCALIA’s concurrence heavily relies, post, at 1–2, 4.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Johnson 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