## Facts

- Dewey Jones threw a Molotov cocktail into a home owned and occupied by his cousin and the cousin’s family as their everyday dwelling in Indiana.
- The fire severely damaged the residence; no one was injured.
- The home was not used for any business or other commercial purpose.
- Federal prosecutors charged Jones under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which criminalizes damaging or destroying by fire or explosive any building “used in” interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity affecting such commerce.
- Jones was convicted in federal district court; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting his argument that applying § 844(i) to a private residence exceeded Congress’s commerce authority.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 844(i) covers arson of an owner-occupied dwelling not used for commercial purposes.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner-occupied residence used solely as a private home is a building “used in” interstate or foreign commerce, or in an activity affecting such commerce, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).
2. Whether § 844(i) may be applied to arson of such a residence based on connections such as an out-of-state mortgage, out-of-state insurance, or receipt of interstate utilities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court held that an owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property “used in” commerce or commerce-affecting activity under § 844(i).
- As applied to the arson of the home at issue, § 844(i) did not authorize federal prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- Section 844(i) requires that the property itself be “used in” commerce or in an activity affecting commerce; it is not enough that the arson might have indirect economic effects.
- “Used in” is best read to require active employment of the property for commercial purposes, not a passive, incidental, or attenuated connection to commerce.
- The proper inquiry focuses on the function of the building and whether that function is commercial or commerce-related.
- A private, owner-occupied home is not “used in” commerce merely because it is financed by an out-of-state mortgage, insured by an out-of-state insurer, or receives utilities that traveled in interstate commerce.
- Statutory interpretation should avoid readings that would effectively federalize traditional state crimes absent a clear indication of congressional intent, particularly where federal-state criminal jurisdiction would be substantially altered.

## Conclusion

The Court construed 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) to exclude arson of an owner-occupied residence used solely as a home, limiting the statute’s reach to property actively employed for commercial purposes and preventing routine residential arson from becoming a federal offense based on incidental interstate connections.


Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000)