_:n72023a2fd6dd4e8a87669d3229560efexb0
<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>[JURIST] The US <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/\">Supreme Court</a> [official website] heard <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/daycall/DayCall_03-30-16.pdf\">oral arguments</a> [day call, PDF] Wednesday in two cases. In <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-6418_mlho.pdf\">Welch v. US</a> [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments on <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-6418_mlho.pdf\">whether</a> [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] a robbery under Florida state law constitutes a violent felony for sentencing purposes under the <a href=\"https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41449.pdf\">Armed Career Criminal Act</a> (ACCA) [materials, PDF]. As a second issue, the court considered whether its decision in <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf\">Johnson v. US</a> [opinion, PDF], decided in June 2015, announced a new substantive rule regarding what constitutes a violent offense and whether it applies retroactively. The case <a href=\"https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-6418\">arose</a> [Oyez summary] when Gregory Welch was sentenced to 15 years in prison under the ACCA for felony possession of a firearm. The sentence was mandated at least 15 years because Welch had three previous felony convictions. Welch argued that one of his prior convictions, a &#8220;strong arm&#8221; robbery in Florida in 1996, fell under the ACCA definition of a predicate offense that required the 15 year minimum sentence. The <a href=\"http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/\">US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit</a> [official website] affirmed the district court&#8217;s determination that Welch&#8217;s &#8220;strong arm&#8221; robbery conviction fell under the definition because it was &#8220;capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person,&#8221; which satisfied the standard the Supreme Court established in Johnson v. US.</p>\n<p>The court also heard arguments in <a href=\"http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-290_j5fl.pdf\">US Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc.</a> [transcript, PDF] on <a href=\"http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co-inc/\">whether</a> [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] the US Army Corps of Engineers&#8217; determination that the property at issue constitutes &#8220;water of the United States&#8221; constitutes a &#8220;final agency action&#8221; subject to judicial review under the <a href=\"https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/\">Administrative Procedures Act</a> [materials]. The case <a href=\"https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-290\">arose</a> [Oyez summary] when Hawkes attempted to purchase land in northern Minnesota to mine peat. US Army Corps submitted an Approved Jurisdictional Determination and argued that the land was a wetland connected to &#8220;waters of the United States&#8221; and was therefore protected under the <a href=\"https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act\">Clean Water Act</a> [materials]. The <a href=\"http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/\">US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit</a> [official website] reversed the district court decision and held that the determination was a final agency action and remanded the action for judicial review as per Hawkes&#8217; request.</p>\n"
<https://www.jurist.org/news/2016/03/supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-violent-felonies-agency-actions/>