In the case of Quarles v. United States, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to interpret a clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA mandates a fifteen-year minimum sentence for defendants who have three prior convictions for violent felonies. One such felony is burglary, defined as unlawful or unprivileged entry into a building with intent to commit a crime. However, there was disagreement over whether this definition included situations where intent to commit a crime was formed after entering unlawfully but before leaving the premises - known as "remaining-in" burglaries. The defendant in this case had been convicted under Michigan law which includes remaining-in offenses within its definition of burglary; he argued that these should not count towards his ACCA tally because they were not covered by federal law's narrower definition. The Supreme Court ruled against him and held that remaining-in burglaries do fall within ACCA’s scope because Congress intended it to cover generic burglary – including both breaking-and-entering and remaining-in scenarios.

In the dissenting opinion for Quarles v. United States, Justice Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). He argued that a defendant must have intent to use physical force at the time they unlawfully enter or remain in a building, not just at some point while inside. According to him, this is consistent with common law burglary definitions and Congress' intention when drafting ACCA. Furthermore, he contended that by adopting an expansive definition of 'remaining-in burglary', it could lead to arbitrary results where defendants who commit similar acts receive different sentences based on minor differences in their conduct. This would undermine ACCA’s goal of punishing repeat violent offenders more severely.