In the case of Matthew Robert Descamps v. United States, 2012, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Descamps by a vote of 8-1. The issue at hand was whether a state conviction for burglary where the statute is missing an element of generic burglary can constitute as a violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). ACCA imposes higher sentences on defendants with three prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies. Descamps had been convicted in California and his conviction did not include all elements required to be considered "generic" burglary - specifically, it lacked the requirement that entry into property must be unlawful or unprivileged. The government argued that courts could examine previous records to find this missing element but Justice Elena Kagan writing for majority disagreed stating such approach would infringe upon defendant's rights under Sixth Amendment which guarantees jury trial because it allows judge to make determination about criminal behavior beyond facts decided by jury or admitted by defendant.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Matthew Robert Descamps v. United States, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the majority's decision was too restrictive and could potentially hinder future cases involving recidivist statutes. He contended that it is sometimes necessary to look beyond a mere conviction to determine whether a prior offense should be considered violent or not under federal law. Alito expressed concern over limiting judges' ability to examine "modified categorical approach" in determining if an earlier conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He believed this would create confusion and inconsistency in lower courts, making it more difficult for them to apply ACCA correctly. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on how state laws are written and interpreted differently from federal ones, arguing that they often overlap significantly.