Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mathis: Alternative Means Do Not Make a Statute Divisible

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 11, 2026 · Updated October 17, 2026

Decision: Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016).

The Supreme Court decided Mathis on June 23, 2016, in a federal sentencing case. Its central question was whether a list of ways to commit one offense creates separate crimes. The distinction matters when a criminal conviction is later examined for immigration consequences.

The state burglary statute covered more locations

Iowa burglary included vehicles and other structures beyond generic burglary’s buildings.

Elements define the offense

The categorical comparison asks what a jury must unanimously find, not every factual way the offense may occur.

Means do not authorize record review

When alternatives are factual means within one element, courts cannot use charging or plea documents to narrow the conviction.

The enhancement failed

The overbroad indivisible statute could not qualify as generic burglary.

Key takeaways

• Read authoritative state law on unanimity.
• Use statutory alternatives to identify elements, not assumed facts.
• Use charging papers, plea agreements, or jury instructions to identify a crime of conviction only after establishing alternative elements. When state law is unclear, Mathis permits a limited look at those documents to answer the threshold elements-or-means question—not to decide what conduct actually occurred. Mathis, 579 U.S. at 518–519.
• Do not convert conduct evidence into conviction elements.