Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 928

529US3

Unit: $U61

[11-02-00 07:34:21] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 848 (2000)

853

Opinion of the Court

United States, 471 U. S. 858, 860, n. 5 (1985) (citation omit-
ted). The word “ﬁre,” which did not appear in § 844(i) as
originally composed, was introduced by statutory amend-
ment in 1982.4 As now worded, § 844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV)
reads in relevant part:

“Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts
to damage or destroy, by means of ﬁre or an explosive,
any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property
used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity
affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be impris-
oned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20
years, ﬁned under this title, or both . . . .”

We previously construed § 844(i) in Russell v. United
States, 471 U. S. 858 (1985), and there held that § 844(i)
applies to a building “used as rental property,” ibid. The
in Russell had unsuccessfully at-
petitioner-defendant
tempted to set ﬁre to a two-unit apartment building he
owned. He earned rental income from the property and
“treated it as business property for tax purposes.”
Id., at
859. Our decision stated as the dispositive fact: “Petitioner
was renting his apartment building to tenants at the time he
attempted to destroy it by ﬁre.”
It followed
from that fact, the Russell opinion concluded, that “[t]he
property was . . . being used in an activity affecting com-
merce within the meaning of § 844(i).”

Id., at 862.

Ibid.5

4 See Pub. L. 97–298, § 2(c), 96 Stat. 1319 (amending § 844(i) to insert
the words “ﬁre or” before the words “an explosive”). The House Report
accompanying the 1982 legislation explained that the original measure,
which was conﬁned to damage caused by “an explosive,” had resulted in
problems of practical application. H. R. Rep. No. 678, 97th Cong., 2d
Sess., 2 (1982).
In particular, the Report noted a Circuit conﬂict on the
question whether the measure covered use of gasoline or other ﬂammable
liquids to ignite a ﬁre.

Id., at 2, and nn. 5–6.

5 We noted in Russell that the original version of the bill that became
§ 844(i) applied to destruction, by means of explosives, of property used
“ ‘for business purposes.’ ” 471 U. S., at 860, n. 5. After some House