# Jones v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 848

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9184158

## Case

- **Full name:** JONES v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 22, 2000
- **Citations:** 529 U.S. 848
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** Ginsbueg, Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 568 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9184158

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining “when [a] choice has to be made between two readings of what conduct Congress has made a crime, it is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative, to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite” (quoting United States v.…
- holding that by using the term “affecting . . . commerce,” “ ‘Congress did not define the crime described in [18 U. S. C.] § 844(i) as the explosion of a building whose damage or destruction might affect interstate commerce,’” and noting that the Court must look to other “qual…
- explaining that the different outcomes in the two cases resulted from factual differences in how the buildings were used—in Russell as a rental property and in Jones as a private residence—and not from legal differences in the meaning of “used in interstate . . . commerce”
- holding that federal arson statute does not encompass burning of owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial activity
- holding that a private residence is not "used in" interstate commerce and therefore concluding that federal arson statute does not cover arson of a private residence

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.
In joining the Court’s opinion, I express no view on the question whether the federal arson statute, 18 U. S. C. § 844 (i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV), as there construed, is constitutional in its application to all buildings used for commercial activities.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9184158. Public record. Not legal advice.