Case Citator › Welch v. United States

Welch 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
578 U.S. 120
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
187 of 187
Citing cases (total)
1,417
Treatment dates
2016
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. Welch v. United States has been limited in one context: all 187 flagged citations have been read. In re Griffin held that Welch's retroactivity ruling for the Armed Career Criminal Act does not make a challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines retroactive in a second or successive § 2255 motion.
More on how this was screened

The Eleventh Circuit later applied Griffin's ruling in In re Sapp and In re Sams. Welch's holding for Armed Career Criminal Act cases remains intact.

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.

1,417 later cases cite Welch v. United States; 187 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 Welch 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 Eleventh Circuit refused to extend Welch's retroactivity ruling to second or successive § 2255 challenges to the Sentencing Guidelines.

    In re Griffin · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    Even assuming arguendo that, going forward, we somehow can write around our Matchett precedent and are bound by Johnson’s characterization of the residual clause as unduly vague for ACCA purposes when considering whether the residual clause in the career offender guideline in § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines remains viable, that does not mean that the ruling in Welch makes Johnson retroactive for purposes of a second or successive § 2255 motion premised on the applicability of Johnson to a guidelines challenge, just because the guidelines challenge happens to be based on the residual clause.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Welch 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