This case involves the interpretation of a criminal statute, a conviction under that statute, and legislation that modifies that criminal statute. Additionally, this is a consolidated case of three confederates who applied individually for certiorari. At its core, it raises questions about how changes in law apply to sentences that have been vacated.

Relevant here is section 924(c). This statute targets individuals who “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . use[] or carr[y] a firearm[.]” Section 924(c)(1)(C) provides minimum sentences for repeat offenders, but its text and application have changed over time.

Title 18 of the United States Code states that an offense may qualify as a “crime of violence” if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). Commonly referred to as the use-of-force clause, this language appears in multiple other statues, such as in the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “violent felony” and the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “aggravated assault.” ​​

Richard Glossip was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Oklahoma in 2004. Glossip has maintained his innocence consistently, and his case has drawn significant attention because of concerns about prosecutorial misconduct and the lack of physical evidence implicating him in the crime.

In 1997, Justin Sneed, an employee of Barry Van Treese at the Best Budget Inn in Oklahoma City, murdered Van Treese. Glossip also worked at the inn. While Sneed admitted to killing Van Treese, he claimed Glossip hired him to commit the crime. The police investigation was highly criticized for being cursory and overlooking potential leads. For example, the police did not search Sneed’s room at the inn, nor did they question most of the inn’s guests. Critical evidence was also released just days after the murder.