Johnson v. United States

Summary

The Court affirmed Johnson’s sentence, holding that postrevocation penalties relate to the original conviction, that § 3583(h) applies only when the original offense occurred after September 13, 1994, and that the earlier version of § 3583(e)(3) independently authorized supervised release following revocation and reimprisonment. It therefore did not decide the constitutional ex post facto question. Justice Souter wrote for Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, with Justice Kennedy joining except for two discussions. Kennedy separately concurred in part, finding the statutory text sufficient and rejecting reliance on § 3583(a) and the suggestion that courts could extend supervised release before revoking it. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, accepting the textual analysis but declining reliance on congressional purpose or those additional statutory discussions. Justice Scalia dissented alone: he agreed with Parts I and II but concluded that revocation annulled the supervised-release term and that the statute did not authorize its reimposition.